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

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

i still have to poll the DPNA board on this, so these are my opinions, 
not our official position.

while the language of the current proposal is much less odious than the 
previous proposal, this to me is a much lower priority issue than 
getting the current housing/zoning codes, violations of which are 
reported and repeatedly ignored, enforced in a timely manner. i'd much 
rather see more pressure put on landlords and property managers who 
neglect their properties to start conforming with our existing codes, 
or going after illegal dumpers, than have the police spending their 
time busting a relative handful of people who are soliciting spare 
change on the public right-of-way.

the bang for the buck return on this proposal is going to be relatively 
small.

barry ragin

----- Original Message -----
From: TheOcean1 at aol.com
Date: Friday, April 21, 2006 9:11 am
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for 
April 25 meeting
To: newman at nc.rr.com, pac2 at yahoogrou
ps.com
Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org

> 
> 
> 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  th
at 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  to
ok 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
> 
> 
>