INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April 25 meeting

Thu Apr 20 22:26:00 EDT 2006

Newman

 I'll second that. Was at both meetings, and speak for all when I say  your 
presence is dearly missed. Not being at either meeting doesn't lessen the  
weight of your words Newman, we all know and respect you, and understand you've  
looked into the efforts of other cities, etc. 

 However, the current phrasing is much more "let's find a better  solution 
than having our needy stand on the curb and beg", than it is an "anti  
panhandling" effort. I understand other cities have semi-failed, but it is even  more 
insane to continue delivering undocumented amounts of cash in an unsafe  
location... namely our intersections.

 I will be supporting the motion, but always hope the neighborhoods  come get 
the story first hand. 

Tues, April 25 at 7pm in the Herald Sun building on Pickett Road

Bill Anderson

In a message dated 4/20/2006 9:42:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
ken.gasch at hldproductions.com writes:

Newman,

I was present when Lewis Cheek came to speak about this  proposal at both 
PAC2 and at INC.  I have given the matter a great  deal of thought.  I have 
visited at length with "solicitors" in my  neighborhood.  I have come to the 
conclusion that this change in our  solicitation ordinance will positively 
impact the current situation.   I hope that neighborhood reps show up and 
vote in favor of this  change.

Respectfully,

Ken Gasch

ORDINANCE REGULATIN  SOLICITATION ON THE

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS OF DURHAM  COUNTY

WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S.  153a-121-153A-125,  and 153A-176, the Board of 
Commissioner may regulate begging, solicitation  campaigns, and salesmen; and

WHEREAS, begging and the  solicitation of money for charities or businesses 
in the streets and  highways of Durham poses a significant hazard both to 
pedestrian and  motorists, and

WHEREAS, begging and the solicitation of money  in the streets and highways 
of Durham poses a significant opportunity for  fraud and misrepresentation,

NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF  COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF DURHAM DOTH 
ORDAIN:

1.. That the Durham County Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding  
a new article to be numbered Article IV of Chapter 22, which article reads  
as follows;

ARTICLE IV.  SOLICITATION ON THE STREETS AND  HIGHWAYS

Sec 22-61  Solicitations  defined

For the purposes  of this article, "solicit" shall mean the 
asking for money or objects of  value, with the intention that the money or 
object be transferred at that  time, and at that place.   Solicitation shall 
include using the  spoke, written or printed word bodily gestures, signs, or 
other means with  the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or 
other thing of  value or soliciting the sale of goods or services.

Sec 22-61  Solicitation prohibited
It shall  be unlawful for any person to solicit an operator of 
other occupant of a  motor vehicle while such vehicle is located on any 
street or  highway.  Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to  
services rendered in connection with emergency repairs request by the  
operator or passenger of such vehicle.

Sec. 22-62  Jurisdiction
This article shall  be effective for all of Durham County not 
within a city, and effective in  such city or cities, which have by 
resolution permitted this article to be  effective within each city or cities

2.. This Ordinance  shall be effective on ratification

This the _____day of______,  2006

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Newman Aguiar"  <newman at nc.rr.com>
To: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Cc:  <TrinityPark at yahoogroups.com>; <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>
Sent:  Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: [pac2] RE: INC NEWS - agenda and  proposed resolutions for April 25 
meeting

>* Vendors in  Roadside Right of Way -- FINAL VOTE
>
> "We, the membership of the  Inter-neighborhood Council, support a change to
> Durham's current  solicitation ordinance that would bar solicitation from
> rights-of-way  in Durham."
>
> I hope sufficient neighborhood reps show up for  the April 25 meeting to 
> vote
> this down.  There has been  significant discussion on this issue and it
> troubles me that INC would  take up a resolution in support of a change, 
> even
> though  strong evidence has been shown, that such a change would do little 
>  or
> nothing to address the current situation.
>
>  Newman
>
>
>
>
> ***
>
> The  opinions expressed herein represent the views of the individual and do 

> not necessarily represent the views of Partners Against Crime -  District 
> II (PAC2) or any other organization. Any use of the material  on this 
> listserv other than for the purpose of discussion on this  listserv is 
> strictly prohibited without the knowledge and consent of  the person 
> responsible for such opinion.
>
>  ***
>
> For more information: http://www.pac2durham.com
> to  post message: pac2 at yahoogroups.com;
> to subscribe:   pac2-subscribe at yahoogroups.com; to unsubscribe: 
>  pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> *** Neighbors and friends: in  order to keep traffic on this list focused 
> on crime prevention,  please do not post virus warnings or personal replies 
> to this list.  Thanks! ***
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups  Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go  to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pac2/
>
>  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of  Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20060420/61f51a85/attachment.htm 