Tucumcari reconsiders, advances landmark sign ordinance proposal

After prodding by officers from the New Mexico Route 66 Association, the Tucumcari City Commission last week passed a first reading of a proposed landmark ordinance for the town’s historic Route 66 neon signs.

However, final passage by the commission likely faces an uphill battle because of concerns about the ordinance infringing on property rights. The commission rejected the proposal during an earlier meeting last month because of that issue.

The Quay County Sun, based in Tucumcari, reported some details about the ordinance and discussion about it:

At a public work session before Thursday’s meeting, Johnnie Meier, historic preservationist for the New Mexico Route 66 Association, advocated for protecting the signs.
Nationwide, he said, “historic Route 66 signs have become trophies for collectors. People are hunting for signs, cutting them down and hauling them away.”
Even designating the signs on the National Register of Historic Places will not protect them from being purchased and taken away.
Tucumcari, he said, “could lead the nation” by passing an ordinance to keep historic signs in the city. “Tucumcari is the pilot.”

City commissioner Todd Duplantis, who owns two restaurants on Route 66 in Tucumcari but no neon signs, again expressed doubt whether the new version of the ordinance compromises the rights of property owners.

When asked about a property owner who would want to rebrand the business, Meier said the owner could consider adaptive reuse of the historic neon sign instead of taking it down.

Duplantis said the new version of the ordinance states a neon sign’s designation as a landmark would be on a voluntary basis by the owner, making the commissioner question how effective it would be.

More details about the proposal:

The new version also states an offer to purchase any landmark sign must be accompanied by a “good faith deposit of 25 percent of the proposed purchase price.”
City manager Britt Lusk said putting up the deposit and placing it in escrow during a review period, which includes 60 days to allow for public hearings, possibly followed by up to 160 days to allow the commission to conduct a “removal/demolition review.”
During the review period, the city would designate a “lead entity” which would “have responsibility for identifying and executing a preservation option.” The options would include consultation with groups and agencies, recommending the landmark’s purchase by an entity that would preserve it or moving a sign to another location to keep it in the city.
Once a sign is designated as a landmark, Lusk pointed out, the ordinance states violation of its provisions could result in a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 90 days, or both.

The proposed ordinance must undergo a public hearing before the commission makes a final decision on whether to approve or reject it.

Two city commissioners, Ralph Moya and Mayor Ruth Ann Litchfield, have stated their support for the ordinance. Duplantis, Amy Gutierrez and Christopher Arias voted against it in December. However, Gutierrez was replaced this month by Paul Villaneuva after he defeated her in the November election. It’s unknown where Villaneuva stands on the issue.

The ordinance proposal was prompted by the disappearance of several historic neon signs along Route 66 in New Mexico to collectors, including three in Tucumcari. Many of those signs were purchased by the Garcia Automotive Group in Albuquerque, sparking an outcry from some Route 66 advocates.

(Disclosure: My full-time job is with the Quay County Sun, but I didn’t write the story for the newspaper.)

(Image of the Blue Swallow Motel neon sign in 2008 by Pete Zarria via Flickr)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.