[Durham INC] Stick with the status quo and that's what you have to live w...
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Tue Mar 2 20:15:21 EST 2010
Mike
I took some of that same heat while I tried to keep the microphone open
while the discussions were ongoing.
I still disagree with those who felt that we shouldn't listen to the
billboard industry, claiming we should reject them before they opened their
mouths.
These were mostly folks I respect, and had never seen them so close minded
before. So I asked them why.
Many felt that discussions were expensive, usually involving lawyers. But
the most logical argument I heard was that any promises both you and I saw
as great benefits to Durham, were impossible to incorporate into the laws
that would then cover these billboards. The company could make promises, but
there was no legal means of making them keep their promises.
I view the company as a decent community minded firm, as I have said in
past posts, but the consequences of changing this law will follow us 50-100+
years into the future. While I think the company would keep it's word in the
short run, there's no telling how long that will last. New management
could take over one day and kick everyone out of the pool who isn't paying.
So in walking away from that portion of the deal (the donating of ad space
to nonprofits) was really walking away from an unknown, and unstable, and
most likely short term benefit. But I still gave weight to other benefits
that were concrete and real.
One was that Durham needs the business that these can generate. Hungry
travelers on I-85 will have to stop somewhere, and the cities on either side of
us will be flashing pictures of juicy burgers at them. I have little doubt
that the "city of foodies" won't attract as many of those hungry people,
even if our food is better. We need that business, and the restaurant owners
among us probably had a harder time saying no than the rest of us. Same
goes for Hotels, and all the other businesses that feed off customers that
travel through.
It's a trade off, we all need money, but we're not willing to put up an oil
rig in our front yard to get it, it would just be too ugly.
The next hardest one for me to walk away from was the Silver & Amber
Alert, and other crime fighting possibilities. I can imagine all sorts of uses,
if, and a big if here, if the company would maintain a deal with our Police
and Emergency Communications.
To your concern for the "fugly" older style billboards that are being
poorly maintained, look at those through my eyes.... they are beautiful! The
reason is legal talk that I hate to try to relay, but as I understand
"Nonconforming" use.... it means that if any of those old billboards require more
than 25% of their value repairs during any calendar year, they are totaled
(have seen the end of their useful lifetime) and they must be taken down
and NOT replaced. So eventually, we'll be seeing the woods and fields and
natural stuff as we drive down the road. It might take 50 years, but imagine
how different Durham will look to those driving through if our roadways are
almost void of advertising. You might be wanting to pull off the highway
and visit this quaint city.
That 25% repair per year is also what will allow some billboards to remain
a long time, perhaps until a tornado rips through and does more than 25%
damage to them.
Some of the billboard companies replace one of the four wooden poles more
often than needed, just to make sure they never rot, doing that on a
rotation would conceivably produce a sign that is only seven years old on it's
oldest part, and might last forever. So I like the ones that are in disrepair,
because there will be a view of the woods there sooner. Not that I'm
against advertising, I've used billboards myself to promote nonprofits, but I'd
rather see trees.
You're not alone in stating those benefits, I've stated them before, too.
And I'm still in 100% agreement that this issue is worth an open dialogue,
where we look at both the negatives AND the positives. But I also still
think that dialogue has already occurred.
Bill Anderson
In a message dated 3/2/2010 7:08:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:
I don't believe I've ever said that I have taken a unanimous decision 'for
electronic billboards'. What I've posted were what some (including
myself)
feel are positives.
There are also many negatives.
The ordinance, as it currently stands, chains us to the possibility of
many
of the same blighted old billboards in and around our neighborhoods,
churches, recreational areas and schools to remain (quite possibly for
decades more) in place.
I've attempted to get people to find a way to remove them by mitigating
the
negatives, that so many neighborhood groups and associations seen as
reasons
to support the status quo.
Over the past several months there's been discussions (mostly against
them).
All I have said is that there are some advantages to them that have been
left out of those postings. The Times article mentions a few of them,
however.
All I have advocated for is a balanced debate.
For this, I have received many emails. Some friendly and understanding,
others accusatory and degrading.
I don't appreciate having words substituted for what I posted.
I have not mislead people in this effort. I only asked them to consider
each side of the issue.
As someone not running for office, I have not been lobbied or
paid/received
ANYTHING from the billboard industry or any of their employees. I
certainly
didn't appreciate the innuendo that I had.
But I have seen how many non-profits and neighborhood volunteer groups
have
struggled thru financially tough times recently. I had hoped that there
was a compromise that could be worked out the might benefit them and, as
an
added benefit, bring attention to some of the more interesting
happenings/events in Durham to those 'just driving thru'.
Some have seen that there was a good argument for Public Announcements
using
electronic billboards as emergency alert mechanisms, but not as many who
see
these as added distractions. I understand this but don't agree that
Amber
and Silver Alerts can't be improved upon.
It'd been helpful if someone could have incorporated these into the mix,
besides me along the way.
Finally, I appreciate the ground swell of support for keeping things the
way
they are. I was just hoping that we could get more out of it.
mike
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a
question without debating it."
--Jeseph Joubert
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schelp" <bwatu at yahoo.com>
To: <inc-list at DurhamINC.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:40 PM
Subject: [Durham INC] List of neighborhoods supporting Durham's
successfulbillboard ban; Last chance to send email...
> folks,
>
> Several neighborhood and community associations support Durham's current
> ban on billboards. Support is strong across all segments of the
community.
>
> (See list of supporting neighborhoods below; along with DCVB poll
> results.)
>
> Happily, other neighborhood boards are meeting to vote to join in
support
> of the current billboard ban. Please let us know if we need to add your
> neighborhood group to the list.
>
> More than 175 emails of support have been sent to officials over the
past
> four days! (One has come in for electronic billboards.) Many many thanks
> to one and all.
>
> If you haven't already, kindly send a short, positive note asking
> officials: "please do not tinker with our successful sign ordinance."
>
> Send email tonight/early tomorrow to Council at DurhamNC.Gov,
> commissioners at durhamcountync.gov, DurhamPlanningCommission at durhamnc.gov
>
> with much appreciation,
> John
>
> ****
>
> Working list of supporting neighborhoods
>
> * Burch Avenue
>
> * Duke Park
>
> * Lakewood Park
>
> * Long Meadow
>
> * Morehead Hill
>
> * New East Durham
>
> * Northgate Park
>
> * Old Farm
>
> * Old West Durham
>
> * Trinity Heights
>
> * Trinity Park
>
> * Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
>
> * Uplift East Durham
>
> * Walltown
>
> * Watts-Hospital Hillandale
>
> * West End
>
> * InterNeighborhood Council
>
> ****
>
> Poll: Residents support current billboard ordinance
> Herald-Sun, 3 October 2009
>
> A poll commissioned by the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau finds
> overwhelming support for the billboard ordinance that now exists.
>
> Support for the existing ordinance was nearly 9-to-1 overall, with the
> ratio of strongly agree to strongly disagree at 8.4-to-1. In all, 72
> percent of residents supported the existing ordinance, 20 percent were
> undecided and 8 percent did not support the current ordinance.
>
> In recent months, Fairway Outdoor Advertising has lobbied the city to
> loosen its billboard restrictions, in part to allow electronic
billboards.
>
> [See letters from the community supporting Durham's current billboard
ban
> here... http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/]
>
> Reyn Bowman, president and CEO of the Durham Convention and Visitors
> Bureau, said he was surprised by the results. Forty percent of the
> population, he noted, did not even live here when the ordinance was
> passed.
>
> Newcomers who have lived here two years or fewer supported the ordinance
> by a ratio of 4.5-to-1 while those here three to five years were 9-to-1
in
> favor, and those here six to 10 years in favor by 20-to-1.
>
> Residents of 11 to 20 years supported the ordinance by 14-to-1 and those
> living in Durham more than 21 years showed support by a margin of 8-to-1.
>
> The general manager with Fairway Outdoor Advertising, which has been a
> proponent of changing the ordinance, was on vacation and unavailable for
> comment, according to a company employee.
>
> Another interesting finding of the poll, Bowman said, is that there was
no
> correlation between respondents' pride in Durham and their position on
the
> billboard ordinance.
>
> Residents supported the existing ordinance regardless of their level of
> pride in or image of Durham.
>
> Even those undecided about either supported the existing ordinance.
>
> Support for the existing ordinance was consistent across gender with
males
> and females, 72.4 percent and 71.4 percent, in favor respectively.
>
> Blacks supported the existing ordinance 11-to1, whites by 10-to-1,
Asians
> by 4-to-1, and Hispanics by 5.5-to-1.
>
> The poll was taken in August after several months of discussion about a
> possible proposal to change the ordinance to permit moving some
billboards
> and upgrading them to digital.
>
> ****
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
More information about the INC-list
mailing list