This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • Jun 5, 5:22 p.m.

    Yes, I guess breaking a law or rule is only bad when you don't like the rule or law. Otherwise, feel free to break any rule or law you don't like. That's the way a society is supposed to run I guess.

  • stormwaterguy Jun 5, 4:21 p.m.

    Until that Light+Tower contraption (public art?) is removed, leave the Rockford sign alone.

  • ncdime1235 Jun 5, 3:18 p.m.

    I think the sign is fine. Gives the building character. It is so much better than a neon sign. If you must, fine them, and move on.

  • cecillll Jun 5, 3:03 p.m.

    It's a great looking sign. This is extremely inconsistent with other painted signs in the area as well. One of my favorite sights in downtown is the Lincoln Theatre sign. The ratio of sign to building at Lincoln is far greater than at The Rockford. Both add to downtown and should stay. - http://goliveworkplay.com/system/photos/347/large/Lincoln%20theatre%20outside.jpg?1293703641

  • Jun 5, 2:50 p.m.

    Either they knew the rules before putting up this signage, or they did not. Either way, they either broke the rules, or failed to understand them in the first place. There isn't any gray area here. THe signs need to be removed, fines issued, and then they can reapply properly this time. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. They can abide by the rules the same as everyone else.

  • Buddy1 Jun 5, 2:30 p.m.

    The majority of the people on here think the sign should stay even though The Rockford broke the rules by painting it without permission. The arguments seem to mostly center around the fact that the sign is pretty and the rules are stupid. Of course these are the same people who would be calling for the sign to come down if it was ugly since it violated the rules.

    Interesting.

  • mockingbird313 Jun 5, 1:41 p.m.

    Shut 'em down. If they're willing to break this rule, what other laws are the willing to break?... View More

    — Posted by Super Hans

    Hasty much?

  • davidhartman Jun 5, 1:25 p.m.

    Sign ordinances; yet another area where municipalities have overextended their boundaries. Exactly 'who' decides what constitutes 'preserving beauty'?

    Nonsense.

  • dwntwnboy2 Jun 5, 1:25 p.m.

    The city is in the unenviable position of HAVING to say something about this because so many other businesses went through the proper channels and followed the existing rules. The city may still find a way to let this stay, but if they didn't call the Rockford on it- why would anyone else bother to follow the rules to begin with? I personally like the signs, but can see the city having to deal with this because it IS a rule violation- even if minor in the grand scheme of things.

  • ezLikeSundayMorning Jun 5, 1:16 p.m.

    I really like these signs for that building. They should definitely find a way to allow for creativity without opening the door to gaudy signs. Maybe the less obtrusive they are as far as lighting and depth, the bigger they can be. If this sign had been there for years it would be something people fight to keep.

  • Save It Jun 5, 12:58 p.m.

    I heard that a few years ago the owner of the Rockford thought about selling it to Nial Hanley who owns The Hibernian and Solas. From what I understand (hearsay) it could not remain a restaurant if ownership changed hands unless an elevator was put in to meet city code. Sounds like second floor dining establishments might face a lot of challenges.

  • Super Hans Jun 5, 12:33 p.m.

    Shut 'em down. If they're willing to break this rule, what other laws are the willing to break?

  • monkeyboy Jun 5, 12:04 p.m.

    "“One of the things they are looking at is how can we allow more creativity,” Baldwin said. “It's a balance between allowing creativity and keeping the community beautiful.”

    so this person is saying that creativity isn't beautiful? i'm betting she's republican...

  • cjw6105 Jun 5, 11:57 a.m.

    The City of Raleigh is about one thing, and one thing only- BIG MONEY.

  • Ijaz Fahted Jun 5, 11:48 a.m.

    Ah good old Raleigh sign ordinance. I've been through it with one of the city inspectors at one of the shops I worked at before. He wanted to tell me that this was the second time he told us to take out banner down. I told him this was the first time in 5 years that we had done any banner ads and that we hadn't been told before since we never had one. He told me he was going to get me a written warning. I told him that would be just fine since we had never been told before.

  • mack24 Jun 5, 11:12 a.m.

    Great signs. Tactfully done. Not Gaudy or outlandish. Keep the signs! If I didn't live 70 miles away, I'd patronize the joint. Looks classy.

  • SouthernChick Jun 5, 11:09 a.m.

    A city rule is a city rule. It stinks, but that's the way it goes. For the record though- this is not a sign, but rather a painted "mural" of sorts on the side of a building. You have to HANG a sign in some sort of form or fashion. This is a painting, not a sign; therefore rule does not apply. Take THAT logic to the board of adjustments and city council!

  • NCCaniac Jun 5, 11:05 a.m.

    I agree that this sign is tasteful and a variance should be allowed. The sign ordinances do need more nuance to them to cover cases like this, but the city does need some kind of sign control....otherwise all of Raleigh could end up looking like Capitol Boulevard.

  • I Have a Discernible Chin Jun 5, 10:52 a.m.

    I love those signs. They should have just made them a little smaller.

  • sbr1963 Jun 5, 10:30 a.m.

    Let the sign stay! It is better than a neon sign and it adds character to the building.

  • Grand Union Jun 5, 10:30 a.m.

    James Goodmon's Nehi Bottling Co. sign on Hillsborough Street violates the sign ordinance too -... View More

    — Posted by archmaker

    I like the sign, but its a dangerous precedent to set simply to allow it to remain without planning appoval.
    There are enough ugly streets in the US because of private businesses signs without allowing any more.

    And is it credible that the business thought they could just add such a sign without getting approval? More likely is that they thought it would be easier asking for forgiveness than it would be for permission. They likely knew full well that the sign was too big and would not be approved.

  • shawn36003 Jun 5, 10:11 a.m.

    Let it stay! It is very tastefully done and does not interfere with anything.

  • smartmomma Jun 5, 10:05 a.m.

    By the way, did the Rockford know what they were doing when they put this sign up and started this petition? Free publicity, right? I never heard of them before, and now I have. Brilliant marketing move if you ask me.

  • smartmomma Jun 5, 10:04 a.m.

    Doesn't the city council have better things to do? Yes, they should have gotten permission, but Raleigh's sign rules are too inflexible for creativity. If the sign fits in with the general area and makes it look better, it should stay. That being said, if it was neon, I would say get rid of it.

  • pdwall1969 Jun 5, 10:02 a.m.

    I think the sign adds a touch of class! sometimes the "code" doesn't allow for an improvement and is more of a hindrance then a help! great job Rockford!!! i will be dining there soon i hope now that i am able to see it!!

  • landonsgrampa Jun 5, 10:00 a.m.

    This is the gravely stupid side of Raleigh and it's wonderful elected officials. I would like to find out if water towers, which belong to the city and have large signs painted on them, are too large for this city ordinance . If so, the city should be required to take it down or paint over it.

  • mmtlash Jun 5, 9:58 a.m.

    The sign looks fine to me....blends in to the building nicely

  • jhsawyer Jun 5, 9:58 a.m.

    I agree; the sign looks great; Raleigh should approve this variance and move on to much more important business.

  • kbird Jun 5, 9:56 a.m.

    another petty thing to distract city officials from focusing on actual problems

    — Posted by PowderedToastMan

    Exactly!!! And how much do they get paid to obsess over something so petty?

  • FilPhord Jun 5, 9:55 a.m.

    They can keep the sign if they challenge. It is painted on the building and will qualify as artwork not a sign. This has been held up every single time by the courts.

  • archmaker Jun 5, 9:54 a.m.

    James Goodmon's Nehi Bottling Co. sign on Hillsborough Street violates the sign ordinance too - but you won't see the City doing anything about that one.

    Meanwhile, Citygate's electronic sign on Glenwood does not violate the sign ordinance and everyone is up in arms trying to get the rules changed.

    Amazing how people feel about the rules depending on whether they like the sign or not.

  • Milkman Jun 5, 9:47 a.m.

    Raleigh, where if they grant you an approval to build a house they'll take it away if they feel like it because "it's too modern". (see Louis Cherry) And if you put up something that matches the old history they say no because it's not modern enough. Fantastic.

  • sww Jun 5, 9:42 a.m.

    I like it. Seems old fashioned; I would have thought the sign was painted there years ago.

  • lucybear06 Jun 5, 9:39 a.m.

    Seriously? Maybe this business owner could have applied for the correct approval BEFORE spending the money to get the sign painted? Even if the ordinance is not fair or over-controlling (I don't think either are true, but that's just my opinion), how stupid is he to just go ahead and do it without thinking there would be consequences??

    It's perfectly fine to not agree with the ordinance - or even fight to get a variance from it, but don't go right ahead and do whatever then cry when the rules are enforced. This fight should've happened BEFORE the sign was painted.

  • pmck Jun 5, 9:31 a.m.

    Raleigh would rather have another failed business. Painted signs are historic in their look and obviously effective. Anyone who objects needs to get over themselves. We were there recently, several folks were taking photos and commented on how nice it looked.

  • jcthai Jun 5, 9:31 a.m.

    Sigh, sometimes a rule is needed that is complex enough to accommodate reasonableness, yet be simple enough for politicians to be able to write it. I understand the need for sign ordinances, but clearly in this case, simple arithmetic formulas don't achieve a reasonable end. There is nothing wrong with these signs. If they were flashing electric displays, yeah, ban them. But these are subtle and reminiscent of the old time signs painted on brick buildings. I love them.

  • jcthai Jun 5, 9:28 a.m.

    This is exactly the kind of sign that is more appropriate than those plastic molded signs. ... View More

    — Posted by Anita Woody

    The grammar and punctuation on your site ARE getting worse by the day. Said the pot to the kettle.

  • br549znc Jun 5, 9:26 a.m.

    I guess the city officials don't have enough to do.

  • scubagirl2 Jun 5, 9:18 a.m.

    Glad to see the MAJORITY on here have some sense....not all mind you but most.

  • Taffy Jun 5, 9:12 a.m.

    I think The Rockford signs are very dignified, subdued, tasteful and quite appropriate for the building and location. I understand the need for rules and the fact that the Rockford didn't follow the process, however to deny and demand the removed of what is in reality a beautiful sign is unnecessary.

  • Enough is Enough People Jun 5, 9:11 a.m.

    The city of Raleigh is way out of line on this issue.

  • JustOneGodLessThanUU Jun 5, 9:10 a.m.

    "The situation is the “poster child” for why ordinance changes are needed, said city councilwoman Mary Ann Baldwin, who hopes the city and the restaurant can find a solution."

    Well councilwoman Baldwin, a good first start would be to cut all funding and lay off the department full of pedantic bureaucrats who are harassing this business. That $751,000,000 budget is too big. You need to cut it somewhere. Why not start here?

    How many more unfriendly departments like this are buried in that $751,000,000 budget?

  • vile garbage Jun 5, 9:09 a.m.

    It's ugly anyway. Rules are rules.

  • aspenstreet1717 Jun 5, 9:08 a.m.

    I think this sign is reasonable.

  • tasfrog Jun 5, 9:01 a.m.

    who gets to decide what's tacky or distasteful anyway? When I'm driving thru Raleigh I have no idea what small businesses there are I can't see their signs because of size and blocked views from the tree ordinances.

  • Anita Woody Jun 5, 8:59 a.m.

    This is exactly the kind of sign that is more appropriate than those plastic molded signs. Raleigh council needs to step up and update the ordinances. Buildings in multi-story buildings certainly deserve something more than the 36 inches above the door to display there business. The business is wonderful - and if you didn't know the Rockford was already there, you would just walk right by it - same for Mitch's Tavern on Hillsborough St. They put up a dozen American Flag poles on the roof with lighting to draw attention to the top floor.

    That being said, WRAL, are you letting middle school children intern there for the summer. The grammar and punctuation on your site is getting worse by the day.

  • Keep Dreaming Jun 5, 8:58 a.m.

    Show support the Rockford, sign the petition!

    http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-raleigh-north-carolina-allow-the-rockford-to-keep-their-signs#share

  • zoso62 Jun 5, 8:53 a.m.

    Leave them alone and do something useful. Geesh!

  • PowderedToastMan Jun 5, 8:51 a.m.

    another petty thing to distract city officials from focusing on actual problems

  • redapace Jun 5, 8:51 a.m.

    Let's pack the place tonight.

Oldest First