INC NEWS - INC News--billboard presentation
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Fri Dec 5 21:31:55 EST 2008
I think we've beaten this dead horse enough to establish that Kelly & Tom
don't want to even hear any offers.
I see no harm in listening, and then making my decision. Kelly asks, "Why do
we have to grant them a hearing?" We (the community) DON'T have to, but
they will be heard by Durham's government, because they have that right. Tom &
Kelly can cover their ears, but as a member of this community, I'd prefer to
know what they are saying.
I hope INC will invite Karen Sindelar, I'll want to hear what she has to say
as well.
I want to hear both sides, because I think it's foolish to make a decision
after refusing to hear one of the sides.
"Why can't we just turn them down outright?" We could. We could have a
debate and only let the con side present, but not the pro side. That makes for a ro
tten debate, and can't imagine that's what either of you want.
"There is not a drumbeat of Durham citizens mobilizing to bring billboards
to our streets", right you are Kelly!
I don't recall any drumbeat to bring us a Bio Lab either. But they were
GOING to appeal to the state of NC, with or without our approval, because they
also had that right.
Should he have waged a debate, but only let those against it speak?
Was there a drum beat for a meals tax? Would we get the picture only
listening to Dallas Woodhouse?
You get the point. This is starting to seem like a debate of "we shouldn't
listen to them" vs "we should".
Bill
In a message dated 12/5/2008 7:53:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kjj1 at duke.edu writes:
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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:pats1717 at hotmail.com)
To: _inc-list at durhaminc.org_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:allen.joshua at gmail.com)
To: _tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com)
CC: _inc-list at rtpnet.org_ (mailto: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_
(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_ (mailto:INC-list at rtpnet.org)
_http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list_
(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_ (mailto:INC-list at rtpnet.org)
_http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list_
(http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list)
_______________________________________________
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20081205/af891229/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list