Where Do Council Candidates Stand ... on the New Sign?

"Would you have supported the spending of up to $40,000 for a new sign in front of the Rochester Hills Municipal Building?"

At a recent candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters, candidates for were asked to respond to this question.

Here are excerpts of their answers:

City Council at-large candidates:

• : I had the privilege of being raised in Port Huron and living on the lake. In the last few years, property values have gone up, a lot of small lots are being bought up, and big "McMansions" are being put on these lots. Locals don't think it fits with the community, but it doesn't make sense to put a $40,000 cottage on a $600,000 lot. This building that we're in is a beautiful building, and I don't think it makes sense to have a $2,000-$3,000 sign in front of a multimillion building. I just think for image and the perception of success of this city, I think it's a good investment.
• : (Editor's note: Webber voted to support the purchase of the sign.) I looked at this issue as one of communication and economic development. A few years back, the city invested in an image campaign, and this sign is part of that. It's another way to communicate our brand and image to residents and future residents. As a city, we've invested in making economic development a cornerstone of what we're trying to do.
• : Do we need a new sign? Initially, I thought no, we don't need a new sign. But I looked at the sign, and it needs help. Does it need $40,000 of help? That's the question voters have to answer when voting in the election. Do we need a sign like this? The bottom line is we can't afford it. At some point, we have to say no, that we're not going to spend superfluous money like this. The spending has got to stop somewhere; $40,000 could buy us a third of a deputy.
• : I feel it's an inappropriate expense at this time. It's also incompatible with this area and with the surrounding woods. I feel $40,000 could have been better spent somewhere else. As far as communication and transparency, we could do a lot more. This event (the candidate forum) is not even on the front page of the website. I think that's really sad.

District 2 City Council candidates:

• : The cost of government is one of residents' highest concerns. I have thought a lot about this issue, and communication and transparency is absolutely key. The way that I look at it, there are over 19,000 cars that drive by (the sign) a day, getting 140,000 views a week. What would we have to do to go out into the market and get that many views, in terms of important safety information, events going on in the city, things that people need to know about around town? It's costing us about $2,600 a year; I would think it would cost us a lot more than $2,600 a year to advertise. Let's go for it. We may be able to spend less in our marketing budget. Also, our peers are doing this.
• : I am all for increased transparency and communication with our residents. However, I have several problems with the way this sign was handled. For one, it was placed on the consent agenda, meaning there would be no discussion. You know, $40,000 is not an enormous amount of money, but at the same time, if this is all for increased transparency, I have a problem with it, especially when we are cutting essential services in the city. We do still have media; we are capable of writing a press release. We have our website. I would not have voted for the sign.
  

This is part of an ongoing series of snapshots of candidates' opinions on city issues leading up to Election Day on Nov. 8. The forum may be watched in its entirety on the Rochester Hills website.

For more Rochester Hills election news, see our election page on Rochester Patch.