Myths and Facts
The following compilation includes Save Our Skyline responses to claims made by referendum opponents at Cambridge Planning Board and City Council meetings as well as in the press.
Myth: This law actually “tightens the rules around what signs are permissible”
Fact: To the contrary, the amendment loosens the rules in three key ways:
The Building Identification Sign provision, for the first time, provides for signs at the roofline. Previously, signs could be no more than 20 feet above grade.
The Building Identification Sign provision also increases the maximum sign size that can be obtained for tall buildings from 60 square feet to 90 square feet.
Most significantly, the General Waiver provision eliminates the strict, “hardship-based” zoning variance process in favor of much more subjective special permits, dramatically lowering the bar for any landlord or commercial tenant who wants to exceed sign size, number or illumination limitations.
The only “tightening” in evidence is one technical provision specifying that, when a sign is accompanied by a corporate color, then that colored area (e.g. the paint on a background wall) is included in the size calculation for the sign.
Myth: Such signs are going up anyway
Fact: A few signs that exceed zoning restrictions have gone up as a result of variances that were granted on the basis of questionable hardship claims – but not many. If the City Council is trying to fix a problem created by lax enforcement of existing zoning law, then the city should enforce the law, not scrap it.
Myth: It's not fair that one building has a sign and one across the street can't have one
Fact: This can happen in cases where the buildings lie in different zoning districts that impose different restrictions on signage or other factors. A case in point is the MXD district near Kendall Square that was specially zoned decades ago to encourage development. Buildings within this district are exempt from a host of normal Cambridge zoning restrictions including those for signs. It doesn’t make sense, though, to “fix” this problem by relaxing zoning everywhere else. Perhaps, instead, the MXD zoning laws should be reexamined. With millions of square feet of office and laboratory space, along with sky high rents, Kendall Square no longer seems to need special incentives to attract development.
Myth: A July rendering of a photograph showing buildings with neon signs for Burger King and other companies was grossly exaggerated
Fact: At the time that photograph was circulated, it was an absolutely accurate depiction of what the amendment permitted when it was proposed early in the summer. The photo helped people understand what could happen – in a way that the confusing text of the zoning ordinance made difficult to appreciate – and it moved them to action.
Myth: This amendment will relieve overworked city employees who have to deal with a lot of signage variance requests
Fact:The public record provides a ready answer to this one: during all of 2009, there were only seven signage variance requests; in 2010, up to and including the summer, there have been only four. Despite the claim, this amendment will actually increase the burden on city employees, as the more permissive process will encourage many new applications for sign permits.
Myth: The citizens of Cambridge are sheep being misled by a well-oiled campaign
Fact: False and extremely insulting to the Cambridge electorate. Despite what one elected official seems to think (based on his comments at the September 13th City Council meeting) the citizens of Cambridge are intelligent, thoughtful, well informed, and fully capable of making up their own independent minds.