INC NEWS - INC News--billboard presentation
Kelly Jarrett
kjj1 at duke.edu
Fri Dec 5 19:52:21 EST 2008
For what its worth--my basic problem with this is the assumption that we
have to even entertain these "suitors." Why should we see if they can
"tempt" us? Why can't we just turn them down outright? Again, this issue
wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't come looking for an audience. There
is not a drumbeat of Durham citizens mobilizing to bring billboards to
our streets and neighborhoods. Why do we have to grant them a hearing?
And if we do, why do we have to assume that compromise on this issue (or
"temptation" as Bill describes it) is even on the table? Why can't we
just say: We are not interested in resurrecting billboard--electronic or
otherwise--in Durham.
And if they're going to be given a forum, at the very least the "we
don't want billboards" position should be represented. Without an
opposing perspective represented--the history of why INC has led efforts
against billboard blight and someone versed on the negatives (from
community, quality-of-life perspectives) of billboard
proliferation--this is nothing less than a sales pitch from the
billboard industry. And I would encourage us to carefully distinguish
between salesmen and suitors.
TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> I think Mike and I are saying the same thing. We shouldn't be deciding
> anything at the moment, except perhaps how we'd like the proposal
> presented.
>
> So far I've heard several desires expressed, from reducing the number
> of billboards in exchange for making one electric, reducing glare,
> posting gratis PSAs, etc.
>
> Pat expressed distrust, Kelly suggested it was " naive to think that
> these billboard will be more effective at attracting people to
> Durham--flashing ads for McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and the XXX-Adult
> Emporium--than the kind of press we've been getting lately in national
> publications promoting us as a hot spot for foodies, a great place to
> retire, one of the countries up-and-coming downtown neighborhoods,
> etc--things that promote Durham itself.."
>
> I would suggest to Pat, trust isn't required where contracts exist,
> and INC has plenty of lawyers around. To Kelly, and everyone else, WE
> DON'T NEED TO DECIDE THIS YET, but wouldn't it be wise to ask our
> suitors to (before they ever arrive at the table) come packing some
> provisions, like not accepting XXX-Adult Emporium type advertising.
>
> It's not naive to think we can influence the proposal before it's even
> brought before us. We could in essence ask that all the Durham kudos,
> like #1 for foodies, etc, get free air time......... and if they
> agree, it still doesn't mean we will allow these new LED Billboards.
>
> I'm suggesting we make this decision as difficult for our selves as
> possible. Don't think they'll give everyone in Durham $500k, but let's
> include all our other desires in our suggestions to them.
>
> Again, we don't need to say "yes", "no" or even "maybe" right now. But
> we should say, "If you are going to even bring us a proposal, you
> might want to include the following....", that doesn't obligate us to
> pass it. But if they can include enough of what we want, it might make
> it tempting.
>
> Bill Anderson
>
> In a message dated 12/4/2008 8:25:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:
>
> Tom is correct on several points regarding INC's history.
>
> And it is precisely that history of INC to have open discussions,
> lively debate and informed speakers on both sides that has enabled
> people (and neighborhood associations) to determine what's best
> for Durham and our community.
>
> But the fact that the billboard industry has NOT gone away and is
> coming back with new proposals doesn't change the fact that INC
> remains open as a forum for those discussions.
>
> This is democracy as it's finest.
>
> Prejudging or taking positions before those debates are allowed to
> take place is NOT what INC is about, in my experience.
>
> Let's allow that proven process of open public conversations at
> INC meetings to continue to be a hallmark of not only this
> listserve but also all the issues that seem to constantly come
> back for refinements (ie UDO, Comprehensive Plan, Natural Resource
> Ordinances, Solid Waste Programs, panhandling, etc) year in and
> year out.
>
> No one is asking any one neighborhood (or individual) to benefit
> while another suffers.
>
> "I would even be against it if what they wanted was to put up one
> new improved and flashing billboard up in someone else's
> neighborhood and pay me $500,000 to sit by while they did it."
>
> Coming up with a perfect solution for any of the above will remain
> to take open minds and continued engagement with those directly or
> indirectly affected by the proposals and links to the decision makers.
>
> Asking people to take a position before all the information is
> placed out on the table is NOT WHAT INC IS ABOUT.
>
> Mike Shiflett
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: pats1717 at hotmail.com
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:48:02 -0500
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - flashing, changing, bright, electronic,
> new, improved, special treatment billboards
>
> Just to remind everyone, the original (2003) anti-amortization
> bill was written so broadly that it would have affected our
> ability to control other noxious uses. THis is the letter INC
> wrote to the Durham delegation for their efforts that defeated the
> bills in 2003 (tho they finally got something through in 2004):
>
> The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham (INC) would like to thank
> you for your leadership in opposing the so-called “billboard
> bills,” Senate Bill 534 and House Bill 429. These bills would have
> hamstrung the ability of local governments to use zoning and other
> regulatory tools to protect neighborhoods from visual blight,
> dilapidated buildings, and inappropriate uses such as junk yards,
> nightclubs, and adult entertainment.
>
> The InterNeighborhood Council of Durham (INC) is a private,
> nonprofit umbrella organization of Durham neighborhood
> associations. Our purpose is to work together to preserve and
> enhance the residential quality of life for all Durham
> neighborhoods. Over the last 20 years, we have enjoyed
> considerable success at the local level. Senate Bill 534 and House
> Bill 429 would have been a significant set-back for our goals.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:12:15 -0500
> From: allen.joshua at gmail.com
> To: tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com
> CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - flashing, changing, bright, electronic,
> new, improved, special treatment billboards
>
> I must agree with Tom who seems to certainly have lived through
> this saga he details for us. I can't imagine how a digital
> billboard, or any billboard, is good for Durham. Not only do they
> create blight and driving distractions, but these new billboards
> will consume and waste energy. I'm certainly willing to listen to
> what they have to say, but I just can't even imagine an argument
> that would cause us to support digital billboards, flashing or
> not. Thanks, Tom, for this detailed history.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Tom Miller <tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com
> <mailto:tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> I for one am against what the billboard people are asking for,
> i.e., special treatment for a non-conforming use. As a
> community, we decided that Durham would be a billboard-free
> zone and we adopted zoning regulations to prevent new ones
> from going up. Those rules also required the old ones to come
> down at the end of their useful life (amortization). The
> billboard industry fought like tigers against Durham in court,
> but Durham won. As a result, a lot of billboards came down
> over time. Then the billboard industry got a bill passed to
> stop amortization as a way of getting rid of unwanted uses and
> the remaining billboards got to stay as nonconforming uses.
> Under the law, the owner of a nonconforming use can keep it
> and can even keep it repaired. He loses it if it's destroyed
> or if he lets it go for a period of time. The one thing he
> can't do is increase it, improve it, or make it bigger or
> better. So if my garage was legal when it was built, but is
> now too close to my neighbor's property line under the UDO, I
> can keep it. I can paint it. I can put a new roof on it.
> But I can't add on to it. I can't replace it with a new one.
> Why is the billboard industry so special that they get a bye
> on the rules we ordinary citizens have to follow and which we
> ordinary citizens count on to protect us?
>
> These are the same people, the exact same people, who did
> everything they could to make downzoning illegal in NC. They
> fought us for years in the legislature. By us I mean INC.
> Once upon a time INC kept a mailing list of hundreds of
> neighborhood organizations across the state. We hosted a
> couple of meetings with neighborhood groups from other cities,
> like Raleigh, Henderson, Chapel Hill, and Winston-Salem.
> Throughout the 80s and 90s when the inevitable billboard bill
> would be introduced in each session of the General Assembly,
> we would work with the League of Municipalities and
> environmental groups to stop or blunt the billboard industry's
> hateful legislation. INC mailed out hundreds of letters
> informing and enlisting neighborhoods all over the state to
> help in the fight. We were pretty successful too.
>
> These are the same people who used litigation as a stalling
> tactic every time our zoning rules required them to take down
> a billboard. It cost the city thousands of dollars in legal
> resources, but I'll hand it to the city attorney's office,
> they didn't give up and they didn't lose. That's when the
> billboard people, one of which was the predecessor of the very
> firm making Tuesday night's presentation, attacked the
> amortization tool in the legislature. We, again I mean INC,
> fought against them. Eventually, however, they got their way.
>
> Now they're still not satisfied. They have a new product
> which even they say is the advertising we can't "choose to
> see", but "have to see" and they want special treatment in our
> zoning ordinance to put it up and make us look at it. Well in
> Durham, we have a choice.
>
> I am against it. I would even be against it if what they
> wanted was to put up one new improved and flashing billboard
> up in someone else's neighborhood and pay me $500,000 to sit
> by while they did it.
>
> No one should get to replace a nonconforming use with another
> nonconformity. When Durham decided to be a billboard-free
> zone, INC was part of that decision. Flashing or just flashy
> versions of the thing we worked so hard to get rid of won't
> convince me to go along with any proposal that replaces old
> billboards with new ones or which treats the billboard
> industry as a special case.
>
> Tom Miller
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org <mailto:INC-list at rtpnet.org>
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>
>
>
> --
> --Joshua
> allen.joshua at gmail.com <mailto:allen.joshua at gmail.com>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your
> Hotmail® account.
> <http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008>
> =
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites
> in one place. Try it now
> <http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010>.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20081205/db4b0d61/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list