Thursday, April 9, 2015

CCR 04-09-15 Signs of Aggrandizement

the   Controversial  Committee   Report
“We don’t raise sacred cows...we just butcher them.”

   Sadly, QueenB VDs carriage has bounced on some rocky roads lately. 

   After losing the media war* over her roll-out — with the assistance of her Pet Rocks — for the State HB 562 media blitzkrieg-performance to  "defend" the Constitution, she quickly initiated a self-promotion siege to "protect" Irving citizens from foreign laws as contained in the Magna Carta.

   (Old political secret: When the populace determines what the political sham, that one might be perpetrating, is all about, there are two options available for the politico upon discovery: 1] Change the subject; 2] Leave town.)

   Aways wanting to be of self-service to her serfs and peons in the realm, the queen finally stumbled on a cause which had all the ingredients necessary to promote her self-aggrandizing actions.  QueenB VD initiated a commissioned statue of her likeness, replete with her infamous Hollywood-ish photo op pose, to be erected at the new Entertainment Center, or at her desired Tennis Center grounds…whichever comes first.  

   (Those two projects are near and dear to the queen’s heart!  Well, maybe not the Entertainment Center as it is probably nearer a different organ.)

   What better way for QueenB VD to pay homage to herself than erecting a permanent monument representing her self-perceived  greatness?

(Proposed QueenB VD of the Divisive House of Irving monument)

   However, QueenB VD soon realized, after unveiling her plans, that a clandestine cabal of bureauCats had control over certain aspects of her anticipated project…the city’s sign ordinance goose steppers.

   Actually, planting her statue of ego personification was not going to be the issue which would create quirky thorns for the queen’s project.  After all, she is the queen.  No thorn was going to prick her in the side, or puncture her ego.

   The unexpected snag in her project related to all the requirements and pitfalls on the city’s books regulating signage.  Of course, all the sign ordinance regulations would apply where the queen wanted maximum exposure: Hwy 183 and Hwy 114 (both directions); as well as having north and south bound signage on MacArthur Blvd. and O’Connor Rd.  

   (Later, she wants signage erected at every Buc-ee’s® in the state directing serfs and peons to Irving.) 

   The queen’s anticipated city billboards would be complemented with flashing photo op pics, digital scrolling of praises to her perceived omnipotence, and tribute banners of sponsorship for her Sugar Daddy donors.

   Not knowing, or understanding why she might be denied an Irving permit for all her signage, the queen just didn’t realize how the city sign process had wander into the realm of absurdity.  Wasn’t having seven separate and distinct sign code ordinances, which are seemly not meshed into one ideal document for all to follow, a bit of obsessive bureaucratic red tape?

   In essence, during the queen’s reign, the bureauCats were operating under separate, and unequal in some instances, codes for the city’s seven sign ordinances identified as: the Sign Ordinance; Highway 183, Heritage District, Irving Blvd. Overlay, Multi-family Code, Health Code, and Fire Code. 

   Granted, each of these areas might require some distinct and special consideration, but doesn’t that leave too much room to vacillate between various businesses or properties considering the same type of signage?

   For instance:  If a business has a particular signage, why can’t an apartment building across the street be permitted for the same type of signage?  Should the Burger King on Beltline be allowed to have a new pole sign when all future burger joints will be denied?  What consistency is applied to "grandfathering" signage in the historical area of  ‘beautiful downtown Irving?’  Do certain businesses, representatives or developers have stronger stings to pull in order that their sign projects are viewed with favor?  (Or maybe, heads are turned for errors of omission followed later by a few mea culpas?)

   Regardless of all the discombobulations, inconsistencies and ability to ‘dance’ around the seven specific sign ordinances, QueenB cut through the bureauCat nightmare by having her signs and banners produced and erected in Irving with a simple dictate:  "Those are my wants and they shall be met.  Period!"

   Moral of the story:  If a business competitor of yours is allowed to have a particular signage which you were denied, the answer to this conundrum just might be: You don’t know the right people; you were not granted a free pass on the queen’s newly revised ethics code; you lack community clout; you didn’t donate to a campaign fund for your local representative; or maybe, you are not a card carrying member of TSAP (Tea Sippers Against Polemicist).

   The city’s sign ordinance:  You can’t fathom it, or advertise without it.

……………………………..Mark Holbrook   
  • The following articles and Op/Ed item clearly demonstrate that QueenB VD and the Pet Rocks (LaMorgese, Spink, Farris and Ward), who voted and supported the queen’s State HB 562 proposed resolution, not only acted with extremely poor judgement, but managed to create a divisiveness never before witnessed in the city.  Even during the ‘great liquor wars,’ the city was not torn asunder as much as this issue promoted and pushed by QueenB VD.  The city received considerable attention, but not the kind conducive to attracting businesses, or promoting tourism.

DMN, Avi Selk, 04-02-15
DMN, Avi Selk, 04-03-15

FW Star-Telegram, Op/Ed, 04-03-15

D magazine, FrontBurner, Eric Celeste, 3-20-15