To the editor:
Congratulations to the Yachats City Council for finding a solution to the problem of signs in our village. We’ve all been threatened by this issue with little hope of relief. Having made the initial attack, the council can now follow a well established pattern for sorting out the details:
1) Set an arbitrary limit on the number of signs allowed; 2) Require a license to own a sign; 3) Make the license non-transferable. When a business closes or sells to another party, the signs must come down. New licenses will be unavailable; 4) Price the license at an exorbitant level; and 5) In the unlikely event of commercial buildings becoming empty, the city can buy them.
This may appear to threaten private property rights. Thankfully most voters within the bounds of the village do not have or need signs. They already know where the commercial businesses are located. So any pushback will come from property owners/investors who don’t live or vote within the district. Who cares about them? They are just in it for the money.
Once this battle has been won, the city can take up the more important fight against business licenses. How many businesses does a village need? Many will agree that three commercial businesses will suffice in Yachats: a bank, a gas station, and a doughnut shop where the code enforcement officers can relax whilst awaiting a tourist dollar to attack.
Once we succeed in driving the tourist trade away, our little village will be as peaceful and quiet as a ghost town.
— Douglas Cochrane, Yachats
