FOLLOWUP: Ruling in for Luna Park Café sign; fine cut in half

FIRST REPORT, 2:02 PM: Just in: Deputy Hearing Examiner Anne Watanabe‘s decision on Luna Park Café owner John Bennett‘s appeal of a $500 citation for an A-frame sign. We first reported two weeks ago that he had been cited for the sign, after two warnings to remove it; city rules say business owners can only have such signs adjacent to their business, but his café is half a block away.

The complaint targeted a group of signs at Harbor/Avalon, not just Bennett’s, we learned when he argued his appeal before Watanabe downtown eight days ago (here’s our report). She said she’d have a ruling in a week or so, so we’ve been checking the city website, where it was posted half an hour ago (read the ruling here). Watanabe affirmed the SDOT decision to cite Bennett for the against-the-rules sign, but reduced the penalty from $500 – the fine for using right-of-way without a permit – to $250, the usual sign-citation amount, noting SDOT wasn’t opposed to a reduction, since it was a first-time citation.

Examiner decisions are the final word so far as the city goes; to challenge a ruling like this, you would have to go to court. We’re seeking comment from Bennett and will update.

ADDED 2:32 PM: Bennett tells us via e-mail that he’ll decide next week what to do about it, adding, “I’m a little upset that the sign ordinances are selectively enforced. I also feel small businesses shouldn’t have to pay heavy fines.” (City reps said again in last week’s hearing that enforcement is by complaint – there may be routine rule-breakers out there, but there’s no enforcement unless someone complains, same as a variety of other non-criminal city code situations.)

11 Replies to "FOLLOWUP: Ruling in for Luna Park Café sign; fine cut in half"

  • IWantMy$2 May 27, 2016 (4:06 pm)

    Dude, just pay the fine.  This comes across as incredibly whiny and really doesn’t make me want to eat at your business.  It’s the equivalent of a speeding ticket, do you feel like you are above speeding tickets as well?

    • GladIGotOut May 27, 2016 (9:22 pm)

      As a former small business owner, this. Small business owners have to pay A LOT of license fees, taxes, and such. It is literally the COST. OF. DOING. BUSINESS. Oy vey. Someone has a thin skin!

  • dsa May 27, 2016 (11:57 pm)

    You won!   They cut you some slack.

  • TheKing May 28, 2016 (6:24 am)

    I agree with Mr. Bennett’s stance, it’s about the principle at this point. 

  • 4thGenWestSide May 28, 2016 (9:18 am)

    Seriously?  Mr. Bennett needs to pick up a hobby or something if he needs to decide what to do next.  Pay it.  Those signs are an eyesore anyways. 

  • Pollo May 28, 2016 (1:10 pm)

    As I was walking to work last night in the junction, there was a truck literally packed full of a frame signs for a condo development. They stopped just before the intersection of Alaska and California, in traffic, to set one in front of the watch/jewelry store right there. 

    And people complain about a local, long-standing business. Get real.

  • Guy May 28, 2016 (1:21 pm)

    4thGenWestSide-I think that’s Bennett’s point. Those signs are everywhere, but the City cited him? Why not everyone else? Basing a decision on whether to cite on whether there’s been a complaint violates substantive due process. 

    • WSB May 28, 2016 (1:45 pm)

      Re: the company/ies that place signs – I asked the city rep about that after the hearing. She said they have “heard of” that – but the liability is still with the company whose name is on the sign. I haven’t yet been able to dig into this but it’s interesting, to say the least, that a company can be in the business of doing something against city rules – placing A-frame signs at locations not adjacent to the businesses they advertise – and not be liable. Re: the citation – again, if you missed the earlier coverage, everyone found at that location, Avalon/Harbor, about which someone complained, got a warning. Then the city inspector went back. Anyone still there got a second warning. After that, anyone there on third inspection got a citation. They mentioned only Luna Park and (nearby) Cycle U as having been cited – two businesses that each are half a block away from the sign spot, unlike the various apartment buildings … Half a block is still a violation, certainly. But should it be? Perhaps someone will challenge the rule itself at some point. That would have to be done, I believe, through the City Council. – TR

  • Qbert May 29, 2016 (10:24 am)

    How come one single a frame sign is somehow disturbing the right of way by being on the sidewalk, but out of town developers can close sidewalks all over town with no acceptable alternative or detour, carte blanche? This sounds like targeted harassment to me.

  • Lonnie May 29, 2016 (9:48 pm)

    I’m sorry but to all those that say to just pay it, Mr. Bennett is absolutely correct in his position.  There really is selective enforcement and the law is extremely vague.  How many real estate sandwich boards for open houses go up every weekend not to mention the yard sale signs that get posted to telephone poles and not removed after.  Every election season, numerous candidates post their signs everywhere and then don’t removed them.  Traveling west on West Seattle expressway, signs for various causes also are continually posted next to the statues.

Sorry, comment time is over.