Evening star., 1933-04-05
Limited Space Allotted to
Buildings Draws Fire at
Public Hearing.
G0TWALS DEFENDS
NEW REGULATIONS
Complainants Declare Rules Place
Arbitrary Restrictions In
furious to Business.

Some Of the proposed changes in the
District of Columbia sign regulations
were opposed at a public hearing con-
Quoted by the Commissioners today, ON
the ground they arbitrarily place
Iurther restrictions on outdoor adyer-
Using at time when merchants and
business firms can least afford it.
The hearing covered six proposals for
strengthening the provisions of the
regulations and making for more order
nness In displays of outdoor advertis-
ing. Criticism of the existing regula-
tionS and efforts to impose stricter limi-
tations ELECTED from Mai. John c. Got
walls, Engineer Commissioner, an appeal
tnat business interests affected assume
a tolerant understanding of what the
commissioners are endeavoring to do
In carrying out the sign law.
David Hornstein, representing the
Sign and Pic torial Painters Local
Union, appeared as the principal op-
ponent OF the proposed changes, while
the only witness who might be termed
as supporting them wholly was Robert
Bresford OF the Architects Advisory
Council
Oppose Limiting Sizes.
Chief opposition was aimed at amend
mentS to strengthen the provisions
against painting Of advertising on build
1ngs and to make more rigid the restric-
tions on signs that project beyond the
building lines and those erected on roofs
OF buildings. An amendment to section
IL, upon which opposition seemed to
center, provided that the total area of
a sign erected on building fronting
two or more streets shall not exceed
100 square feet.
Under the existing section such signs
are limited to 100 square feet on each
side of q street fronting the building
and to one-fortieth of the space Of q
side wall when it Is 1000 square feet
or over in area. Mr.. Hornstein OBJ
jected to the proposed limitation az
arbitrary and one that might have q
serious effect on business. Sign paint
ers, he said, have suffered by curtail-
ment Of allowable signs and the sug-
gested limitation would force addi-
tional injury ON them. He declared the
sign painters concede that the Ma
tional Capital should be made as at
tractive as possible but he quoted
recent Illinois decision as questioning
the authority exercised by the Com
missioners under the existing regula-
tons.
He also opposed another change
which provides that no permit would
be issued for the erection or painting
of new sign or signs on the walls Of
buildings except those which abut a
public street or those having a busi-
ness entrance on an alley, provided
other regulations were met
Maj. Gotwals, in defending the regu-
lations, reminded all witnesses that the
Commissioners had applied the regu-
lations very mildly and had sought to
avoid being arbitrary. From year to
year, he reminded, restrictions favoring
the preservation ofesthetic values were
growing in the public mind and this
general marching forward of public
opinion" he said, SIS what helps
administrative officers"
Pleads For Human Side..
For the architects, Mr.. Bresford
claimed that recently In New York
names, restrictions had been imposed
against projecting signs in Thirty
fourth street and other business thor
oughfares. The more signs there are
In a street, he contended, the more
their advertising value decreases.
Electric sign representatives also
opposed q change In the regulations
which would designate as roof" sign
any sign that extends above the para
pet wall or roof. Even If such a sign
was only 6 inches or a foot above the
roof line, 1t was pointed out, 1t would
come under the designation. No oppo-
sition was voiced against the limiting
Of signs in residential sections to 40
square feet.
A sign painter, Michael Gretick, pro-
tested that the restrictions on outdoor
advertising had put him out Of work."
He urged the Commissioners to con-
slider the human side" and to be more
liberal in the future.
Others appearing at the hearing in
cluded Miss Ada z. Fowler, G. H. Will
berger and H. J. Powers for electrical
advertisers; G. e. Slick, Samuel Han
lein, 934 D street; James w. Mullins,
sign painter, and Edward Humm, 62i
street
Mr.. Powers suggested that instead Of
limiting signs on buildings to 100 square
feet that each occupant of the building
be permitted a certain number Of square
feet for advertising purposes.