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

[TheOcean1 at aol.com]

Newman
 
 Can't argue that ideally both the County AND The City would roll out  the 
same rule at the same time, but that's simply is not going to happen.
 We have to start somewhere, and while this is admittedly a small  step, it 
is in the correct direction. Allow the county to lead by example.
 It might not be perfect, but it is far better than standing  still.

Bill Anderson
 
In a message dated 4/21/2006 9:06:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
newman at nc.rr.com writes:

Richard,

Please take a look at the "Jurisdiction" section of the  proposed change.

"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"

My view is that the  beautification argument has been the poorest of the lot.
What's more is  that the current proposal would not even be applicable for
the areas you  use as an example.  Note that the current proposal does not
include  the city.  So, it would do NOTHING to further your cause.  Also  note
that the city has previously had the wisdom to reject such a proposal  in the
past.

Newman

-----Original Message-----
From:  inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf  Of Richard Mullinax
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:27 AM
Cc:  pac2 at yahoogroups.com; inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2]  RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April
25 meeting

Several of  the places used for side of street solicitations are very 
ugly due to  trampled landscaped areas and trash. The new ordinance will 
allow the  grass to grow back and our gateway areas to become inviting to 
visitors.  How much increased costs to manage did we suffer when the 
existing change  took place to require badges and reflective vests? Not 
much, and this new  change will not cost much either. The current 
solicitors will get the idea  and only startup sales will have to be 
ended. The new ordinance will make  it easier, because anyone soliciting 
will be dealt with.

The local  I-85 at Roxboro solicitor has not been active during the 
construction, and  this new ordinance will prevent them from returning. I 
thankfully support  the work that has gone into this beautification proposal.

Richard  Mullinax
921 N Mangum
Old North  Durham
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing  list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list




***

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/








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20060421/3008756b/attachment.htm