Salem is pressing pause on sign code enforcement — a reset City Manager Krishna Namburi says is meant to give businesses breathing room while the city works with the community on a clearer, more workable approach.
At a Jan. 29 downtown community forum focused on safety, services and economic revitalization, Namburi told attendees the city has heard steady concerns from the business community about how the sign code is applied and what happens once an issue is flagged. Her message: the city is stepping back from enforcement for the next few months to gather feedback, refine the process and return with a system that works better for everyone.
“We’ll be pausing enforcement for the next few months,” Namburi said at the forum, describing a plan to work directly with businesses, collect input and adjust the city’s approach before enforcement resumes.
The pause is part of a broader effort to reduce friction for businesses while the city balances public safety and code compliance. Namburi framed the change as a practical response to what the city has been hearing: if the rules aren’t connecting with the people expected to follow them, the city needs to stop and fix the process — not just keep pushing forward.
A shift from enforcement to collaboration
Namburi said sign code frustrations have been one of the most consistent themes she has heard during the past year. At the forum, she described the city’s intent to use the enforcement pause to slow down, listen and design a path forward with the people most affected — especially small businesses and tenants who may not control the property but still need signage to operate.
Alongside the pause, city staff highlighted changes meant to reduce cost barriers. One update discussed at the forum: the Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Area grant guidelines were changed to allow tenants — not only property owners — to apply for permanent sign support within the URA boundary. City leaders described the change as one way to help businesses afford compliant signage while the broader code review is underway.
The enforcement pause and grant changes land as Salem moves into a politically charged year where permitting, trust in City Hall, and the “feel” of doing business in Salem are getting sharper scrutiny. The sign code has become a flashpoint not just for what it regulates, but for how business owners say the process plays out once the city starts asking questions.
What business owners say it feels like on the ground
At a Jan. 12 Salem City Council meeting, multiple speakers told councilors the sign code isn’t a small technical issue for them — it’s a real cost, a real delay, and in some cases, a lasting fear of re-engaging with the city.
Salem Area Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Hoffert told the council the chamber keeps hearing the same two concerns from business owners: permitting and sign codes. He emphasized that delays don’t just create paperwork headaches — they translate into lost days of revenue once a business has already invested in a location.
Namburi, speaking at that Jan. 12 meeting, acknowledged the recurring nature of those complaints and said the city spends significant internal time responding to repeated sign code and permit issues — time that could be better used if the underlying system were improved.
For business owners, the central question is whether the city’s pause leads to a cleaner, more predictable process — one that still protects safety standards but reduces surprises, escalating costs, and what owners describe as “piling on” once enforcement starts.
Torque Automotive: No Signs at Business Location in Fear of Salem Sign Enforcement
One of the most detailed public accounts came from Shari Shaw, who identified herself to council as the owner of Torque Automotive. Shaw told councilors her sign code dispute became destabilizing, expensive and emotionally exhausting — even after she tried to do things the right way by asking what was required and paying for what she believed were the necessary permits.
She said she later received notices alleging additional violations months after her initial contact with the city, and that the situation escalated into a hearing where she hired an attorney. Shaw told councilors the experience left her unwilling to go back through the sign process again.
“Now my business in South Salem has no signs. None,” she said. “Because I am terrified to sign up for a sign permit and go through that process again.”
Her testimony became a shorthand example for what other owners describe as a core fear: once an issue is flagged, the cost and complexity can grow quickly — and even if a dispute is resolved, the damage to trust can linger.
Storage 4 Less: visibility, right-of-way lines, and rule changes
Storage 4 Less owner said the business’s experience began with a basic visibility problem — not a desire to bend the rules.
Storage 4 Less operates off 22nd Street on a site set back from the street with two driveways. The owner said the business used small banner-style flags to help customers find the entrances — the kind of signage common at many commercial sites — but was told they could not be placed in the public right-of-way.
The challenge, the owner said, is that the right-of-way boundary isn’t marked on the ground in any obvious way. After a later incident, the owner said the city removed the banners without notice, and the business only learned what happened by checking security cameras.
Over time, the owner said, requirements changed again. The owner said the city told them the banner setup was now treated as temporary, with limits on how long they can be used and new permit requirements tied to those limits.
“We’re off the street. You couldn’t see. We got two driveways,” the owner said, describing why the banners mattered for daily operations.
The owner said the city’s new rule meant banners could only be used in short windows each year, with a permit required each time.
“You can put them out for 60 days at a time, twice a year — and you have to get a permit,” the owner said.
The owner said sign-related disputes can expand past signage. In this case, the business said the issue widened into other inspections, including a fire hydrant requirement tied to structures built on the back of the property — a change the owner said could cost several hundred thousand dollars, around $300,000, years after certificates of occupancy were issued.
The new Black Bear Diner on Commercial St doesn’t have its famous Bear in front of the restaurant… because they are considered a “sign.”
Battle Creek neighborhood sign: a small change, a big price tag
Sign code disputes aren’t limited to commercial properties downtown. In a separate case discussed in community conversations, a Battle Creek neighborhood sign replacement turned into a larger dispute over permits, lighting rules, and escalating fees based on how the city measures a sign’s size.
In that account, a homeowner group replaced an older, vandalized sign with a new design meant to be roughly comparable in lettering — but the overall sign panel was larger, which affected the permit cost. When lighting was added, the group later learned residential rules restrict certain types of illumination, triggering another layer of compliance questions.
The details vary by site and zoning, but the pattern is familiar: residents and owners say they thought they were making reasonable updates, only to discover that small changes can carry unexpectedly large permit costs and enforcement consequences.
What the pause could change
Namburi’s message at the downtown forum was that Salem is trying to take the temperature down and rebuild the system with more clarity and buy-in. The next few months will be the real test: whether the city’s pause produces a cleaner process and clearer expectations, and whether businesses see changes that reduce financial risk and improve consistency.
City leaders say they still have responsibilities tied to public safety and standards. Business owners say they need rules that are easy to understand, predictable to follow, and applied in a way that doesn’t spiral once enforcement begins.
For now, Salem’s pause on sign code enforcement gives both sides time to reset — and a chance to turn one of the city’s most persistent sources of conflict into a more functional system.
