One of the most absurd rules handed down by the federal government in recent years was one that set deadlines for state and local governments to replace street signs with new signs that are more visible.
Everybody favors safer streets, of course, but Washington issued the mandate, under the Bush administration in 2003, without thinking of the impact such a rule would have on municipal and state budgets. You see, even though Washington was ordering the signs to be changed, it was requiring local and state governments to pay for the huge project.
In Tennessee, it is estimated the changes would have cost the state $50 million. New York City alone, meanwhile, predicted it would have to spend nearly $28 million to change out its signs to meet the federal standards.
That was not only financially burdensome, but it was unconstitutional. The federal government has the right to set visibility standards for signs on federal roadways, but what business does it have dictating standards for signs on local and state roads?
Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Transportation has now rescinded the deadlines for replacing the existing signs with more visible ones. That decision was praised by members of Congress from Tennessee.
U.S. Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, as well as 3rd District U.S. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Chattanooga and U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais of the neighboring 4th District, pointed out that especially in a time of economic crisis, Washington has no business imposing costly mandates.
Instead of setting strict deadlines on replacing street signs, the Transportation Department now says they can be changed to the more visible signs only when they actually need to be replaced.
That’s a move in the right direction. But it would be better still — and certainly more constitutional — if the federal government concerned itself strictly with signs on federal roads and let local and state governments deal with signs on their respective roadways.