INC NEWS - [pac2] Re: Hey--time out!
TheOcean1@aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Thu Jan 19 13:18:51 EST 2006
Kelly and Chris
Now that's more like the intelligent dialogue I subscribe to this list to
avail.
I apologize for letting my buttons light up. But if it takes lighting them
up to inspire thoughtful debate, then feel free to light 'em!
And Chris, I share your concern about gentrification. It is indeed a sad
byproduct of cleaning up a neighborhood sometimes. Still, we can't stop picking
up the litter, for fear that it will eventually double the property values,
and some of the poor original residents might be motivated to sell their
homes.
To this I have no answer either. But if we keep our good heads together,
and our tempers in check, perhaps we'll find one.
Bill
In a message dated 1/19/2006 12:38:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kjj1 at duke.edu writes:
Chris: I agree with your point about decreasing federal money. Part of the
problem is that we're trying to address these issues locally--which is a
necessary part of the problem--without putting them into a broader national
context. Homelessness--in large part a by-product of national tax and
resource distribution policies that dramatically shrink the national
commitment to affordable housing programs and subsidized housing programs
such as Section 8 housing. Mentally ill and addicted homeless people on the
streets (sometimes selling newspapers)--a by-product of national tax and
resource distribution policies that have shrunk mental health and drug
treatment monies. Poverty--we have seen an unprecedented redistribution of
wealth, again, national tax and resource distribution policies that give
benefits to the rich and distribute income and resources upward rather than
equitably. Compounded by lack of national universal health care.
Every time we face a tough decision about distribution of resources here in
Durham, about having to raise local taxes or institute "fees" for services,
I would like to see it tied to these national policies. The current
regime's strategy of "starving the beast" at the federal level only leaves
us holding the bag at the local level.
--On Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:20 AM -0600 Chris Sevick
<csevick at verizon.net> wrote:
> Thanks Kelly. I'm just trying to push some buttons, and get people
> thinking. I guess I pushed the right buttons. :)
>
> As far as Bill's email, let's just be honest here. We all know the
> single most effective way to fight crime. It's called gentrification.
> As property values rise, poor people get pushed out, and the crime leaves
> with the poor people. In the short run, you might make a neighborhood
> safer for law-abiding poor residents, but in the long run, they get
> evicted to the same neighborhood as the the criminals. This process will
> reduce crime in a particular area, not overall crime. It also raises
> serious moral questions, and they shouldn't be ignored.
>
> Those active members of PAC2 seem to understand that gentrification
> works. In fact, they are trying to expedite it. In this panhandling
> debate, they have even bypassed the issue of crime, and directly gone
> after the poor people. On top of that, they say that they are doing it
> for the safety of the panhandlers. It should be no surprise that some in
> the community object to this on moral grounds.
>
> As far as my "brilliant solution", I don't have one. That's the whole
> point. There is no quick fix to these problems. As far as an
> incremental approach, I think those concerned about crime should be very
> concerned about the decreasing federal money that is contributed to our
> county's social services. This seems like the key battleground against
> crime in Durham, but I guess it's not very glamorous.
>
> Anyways, good luck with the War on Jaywalking. I don't think it's a wise
> strategy for Durham, but I guess we'll see if the rest of Durham goes
> along with it.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
> =====================
> From: kjj1 at duke.edu
> Date: Thu Jan 19 09:44:08 CST 2006
> To: TheOcean1 at aol.com, csevick at alumni.unc.edu, inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: Hey--time out!
>
> Hey--This is getting a bit ugly here folks. I don't think these are
> either-or issues here, but rather both-and ones. The problems of crime,
> violence, addiction, and poverty are complicated ones--compounded by
> race, gender, xenophobia, etc.--and they require complex, multipronged,
> and open-hearted responses. It is reductive to think that either "broken
> windows" enforcement or social theorizing with an eye only toward
> long-term causes and effects will resolve these problems.
>
> Instead, I think we all need to start somewhere--and that somewhere will
> differ for each of us. We have, after all, different values, different
> gifts, different obsessions, and different experiences and beliefs that
> motivate us to action. But wherever we start and however much we do, we
> also need to be mindful that each of us has only partial understandings
> and partial solutions. Thus, we need to listen to each other, be
> appreciative of the work others do on these issues, be as generous in
> our interpretation of their motivations as we are in using our critical
> tools and exercising a "hermeneutics of suspicion," and exercise a bit
> of humility and humor in our dealings with each other.
>
> Just a suggestion, humbly offered.
>
> Kelly Jarrett
>
> --On Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:18 AM -0500 TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> You seem rather quick to discount the suggestions of others here, or
>> reply sarcastically. Yet you are rather slow to make any suggestions
>> yourself.
>>
>> If we could completely end all rapes and murders in Durham, even if it
>> meant keeping our panhandlers and jaywalkers, I'm sure everyone here
>> would support that trade off.
>>
>> While we morons all wait for the brilliant solution you are about to
>> announce, would we have your permission to pick up some of the litter on
>> your street?
>>
>> Bill
>> In a message dated 1/19/2006 8:10:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> csevick at verizon.net writes:
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> I stand corrected. This New York City subway analogy is conclusive proof
>> that Durham needs to vigorously enforce jaywalking laws. If Durham
>> tackles it's jaywalking problem, I'm sure we can expect to see the same
>> drastic reduction of rapes, murders, and muggings. Just imagine how safe
>> Durham would be if the police ticketed everybody who drove one
>> mile-per-hour over the speed limit.
>>
>> It all makes perfect sense now. ;-)
>>
>>
>> - Chris Sevick
>>
>>
>> =====================
>> From: Ken Gasch <ken.gasch at hldproductions.com>
>> Date: Thu Jan 19 06:24:04 CST 2006
>> To: csevick at alumni.unc.edu
>> Cc: pac2 at yahoogroups.com, inc-list at durhaminc.org
>> Subject: Re: [pac2] Panhandling ban (Digest Number 1520)
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> That is exactly how folks responded in the early 90's when the NYPD
>> responded to escalated murders, rapes and muggings in the city's subway
>> system by cracking down on folks who SKIPPED THE FARE.
>>
>> Can you believe it? Folks were being hammered for not paying $1 and
>> crime
>> in the city's subway fell off a cliff. They did not increase police
>> roles
>> to do this.
>>
>> If any reporter would like to call me about your article , my number is
>> below.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Ken Gasch
>> 220-0351
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Sevick" <csevick at verizon.net>
>> To: <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [pac2] Panhandling ban (Digest Number 1520)
>>
>>
>>> I'd just like everybody to take note that Colin is calling for the
>>> strict enforcement of JAYWALKING. If any of you newspaper reporters
>>> out there are looking for another way to denigrate Durham, here it is!
>>> I can see the headline now:
>>>
>>> "As homicide rate soars, Durham residents ask police to focus on
>>> JAYWALKING"
>>>
>>> You guys who want to ban panhandling might want to take a step back and
>>> look at the big picture. Don't get too mad at me. Maybe I can help
>>> prevent things from getting too silly. We don't want PAC2 to start
>>> targeting the people who remove those tags from mattresses.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris Sevick
>>>
>>>
>>> =====================
>>> From: Colin Crossman <lists at ursa.ath.cx>
>>> Date: Wed Jan 18 13:58:38 CST 2006
>>> To: Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
>>> Cc: pac2 at yahoogroups.com, Michael Bacon <michael at snowplow.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [pac2] Panhandling ban (Digest Number 1520)
>>>
>>> I agree with Mike that Michael's post was well considered. Indeed, he
>>> hits the nail on the head when he states that we should not be looking
>>> toward Durham to pass new ordinances to regulate panhandling, especially
>>> when such ordinances would be Constitutionally suspect. Durham can ill
>>> afford a Constitutional challenge. Additionally, I've seen several
>>> studies that would support his position against the "broken-windows"
>>> theory, and think that such theory has been shown lacking.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, there is a simple solution which does not depend on
>>> "broken-windows" theory. Also, this solution has been pre-packaged for
>>> us by the North Carolina Legislature. NCGS 20-174, NCGS 20-174.1, and
>>> NCGS 20-176 all work together to regulate jaywalking.
>>>
>>> These statutes, taken together, allow the Durham Police Department and
>>> Prosecutor's office to address the issue of panhandling on roadway
>>> medians. Indeed, they can begin issuing citations of up to $100. They
>>> can start tomorrow, if they want. Every time a median panhandler steps
>>> off the median to approach a car, the panhandler is subject to such a
>>> $100 fine. Indeed, in many cases, the panhandler had to jaywalk to get
>>> to the median in the first place.
>>>
>>> Why should we enforce this law? As Mike says, the median panhandlers
>>> aren't just putting themselves in danger, they are also increasing the
>>> liability for each and every driver. If a driver accidentally hits a
>>> panhandler, the panhandler is potentially dead and the driver is
>>> potentially subject to criminal negligence.
>>>
>>> I see this as an argument about safety - the safety of the panhandlers
>>> to be free from vehicular trauma, and the safety of drivers to be free
>>> from liability caused by the actions of another. That is also why I
>>> limited this to a discussion of median panhandling.
>>>
>>> -Colin
>>>
>>> Mike - Hotmail wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Bacon's posting was long and well thought out. Although it
>>>> applied Broken Windows theory in it and how it's been applied
>>>> incorrectly, I'm still not sure it applies to the question of safety
>>>> that many people have expressed here on this listserve.
>>>>
>>>> If you haven't read it completely, it's worth the 3-4 minutes reading
>>>> time when you've got the time (bathroom throne material?).
>>>>
>>>> However, many people still have problems with the risks a panhandler
>>>> poses in soliciting funds at intersections and busy streets as a
>>>> safety issue, not just an aesthetic one.
>>>>
>>>> Attacking one side of the issue doesn't make the other go away.
>>>>
>>>> Safety, for the panhandler (and a street vendor of newspapers) along
>>>> with the risks of a driver hitting one of them, remains a valid
>>>> concern no matter how you phrase "social disorder", order
>>>> maintenance policing and/or whom you put the role of a victim in the
>>>> 'subject creation' scheme of things.
>>>>
>>>> I for one, support Lewis Cheek's proposal to look at this issue
>>>> again, if just to answer these questions.
>>>>
>>>> Allowing pedestrians in the form of panhandlers, solicitors and
>>>> newspaper vendors to work in an area so close to vehicular traffic is
>>>> patently dangerous!
>>>>
>>>> It's one that many people are afraid to address in an open
>>>> forum because they might be perceived as being opposed to free speech.
>>>>
>>>> This is as blatantly unfair to them as it is to the motorist who
>>>> eventually hits one of these individuals and not only will have to
>>>> face the psychological trauma of this event but also a potential
>>>> liability and legal fees that most likely would follow as they have to
>>>> respond to why they imposed on the rights of that individual to
>>>> express themselves by hitting them with their car, truck or motorcycle!
>>>>
>>>> Why would the city (and county) continue to allow a practice that
>>>> still puts both parties at risk?
>>>>
>>>> mike shiflett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Michael Bacon <mailto:michael at snowplow.org>
>>>> *To:* pac2 at yahoogroups.com <mailto:pac2 at yahoogroups.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 16, 2006 3:24 PM
>>>> *Subject:* [pac2] Panhandling ban (Digest Number 1520)
>>>>
>>>> To finally comment on this issue, I first want to say that I was
>>>> very glad
>>>> to hear Ken's comments on panhandling in response to the earlier
>>>> story.
>>>> The way the story was written (and the way subsequent stories have
>>>> been
>>>> written), it sounded like PAC2 worked on a Summary Eviction for
>>>> someone
>>>> whose offense was panhandling and vagrancy. I'm relieved to hear
>>>> that the
>>>> person in question was actually committing a crime worth blinking
>>>> at before
>>>> getting evicted. If there's been a correction in the papers
>>>> regarding
>>>> this, I haven't seen it -- for public image and political support
>>>> reasons,
>>>> I would strongly recommend that those involved seek a
>>>> clarification in the
>>>> paper.
>>>>
>>>> As for Lewis Cheek and his panhandling ban, I have to say that I'm
>>>> also
>>>> relieved to hear that Council seems to have little interest in his
>>>> proposals. I believe that the last time we visited this issue, we
>>>> came up
>>>> with a number of very sensible statutes that address the problem
>>>> in a legal
>>>> and ethical way. I think a little more attention to those existing
>>>> statutes could address the problem better than Cheek's proposal.
>>>>
>>>> Before I go on, a warning: what follows is a bunch of rambling
>>>> about social
>>>> theory. Do not read while operating heavy equipment or doing
>>>> anything else
>>>> in which falling asleep might result in personal injury.
>>>>
>>>> There's a good bit of work in criminology and sociology on order
>>>> maintenance policing, which is the fancy word that social
>>>> theorists have
>>>> come up with for "Broken Windows." When talking about panhandling
>>>> in Durham, Bernard Harcourt, probably the most adamant critic of
>>>> order maintenance, hits it right, I think. Harcourt goes after it
>>>> from several
>>>> angles in "Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows,"
>>>> including taking on the New York case by showing that many other
>>>> cities
>>>> showed similar declines in crime without order maintenance
>>>> policing and
>>>> exposing gaping holes in many of the empirical studies used to
>>>> support
>>>> order maintenance. What I find most relevant in this case,
>>>> though, is his
>>>> most abstract and theoretical argument, that much of order
>>>> maintenance
>>>> policing amounts to what Foucault calls "subject creation." In
>>>> more plain
>>>> English, what he means is that while local elites have opposed
>>>> vagrancy,
>>>> panhandling, public drunkenness, and other forms of "social
>>>> disorder" for
>>>> centuries, a socially liberal state dictates that we not impose on
>>>> personal
>>>> freedom. Under the rough tenets of order maintenance, though,
>>>> these problems lead either directly or indirectly to robberies,
>>>> assaults, larcenies, and murder. In this way, order maintenance
>>>> becomes a moral
>>>> justification to ban these social behaviors some want to get rid
>>>> of anyway.
>>>> We create the "subject," in this case the crime of vagrancy as a
>>>> precursor
>>>> to serious crime, in order to then turn around and try to solve
>>>> it. Now,
>>>> this would be fine if empirical evidence actually supported what
>>>> some call
>>>> the "strong broken windows hypothesis," that social disorder
>>>> directly causes increased serious crime, but very strong research
>>>> over the past
>>>> decade hasn't borne it out.
>>>>
>>>> Back to Durham, I can see some very valid reasons to be concerned
>>>> about
>>>> panhandling. Aggressive panhandling, perfected by everyone's
>>>> favorite
>>>> downtown friend, Calvin Ray, is just a specialized form of
>>>> harassment.
>>>> Also, as George Kelling and Catherine Coles point out in their
>>>> book, "Fixing Broken Windows," the most recent broken windows
>>>> manifesto, some
>>>> activities which may be considered perfectly "orderly" at one time
>>>> of day
>>>> may be very "disorderly" and threatening at another. Panhandling
>>>> is a
>>>> great example, which is why I think the city's ban on panhandling
>>>> at night
>>>> is right on. Kelling and Coles also point out that by encouraging
>>>> panhandling, we are encouraging panhandlers to live in far more
>>>> dangerous
>>>> and exposed conditions than they would were they to seek help
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>> And as David Thatcher pointed out in an article last year, there
>>>> is an
>>>> inherent benefit to preserving order in our public spaces,
>>>> regardless of
>>>> its impact on crime.
>>>>
>>>> But let's take a look at our situation as a city as it stands now,
>>>> and at
>>>> Lewis Cheek's proposal. We really have two separate, mostly
>>>> unrelated
>>>> problems. One is aggressive panhandling on 9th Street and
>>>> Downtown. For
>>>> these, we have a ban on aggressive panhandling and panhandling
>>>> after dark,
>>>> both of which are constitutionally legitimate and morally
>>>> defensible. Frankly, I think they've both worked great. While I
>>>> don't get downtown
>>>> nearly as much as I used to, I haven't seen hide nor hair of
>>>> Calvin Ray in
>>>> well over a year, and I haven't been aggressively accosted by
>>>> anyone else
>>>> in that time either. On 9th Street, which is much closer to home
>>>> for me,
>>>> there are only two men who might fall into the category of
>>>> "panhandlers."
>>>> One is a man who goes by the name "Concrete," who clearly suffers
>>>> from some
>>>> degree of mental illness, and who appears genuinely shy about
>>>> asking for
>>>> money, and frequently doesn't when I talk to him. He's also never
>>>> asked me
>>>> for money after dark. The other is David McKnight, who's a busker
>>>> (street
>>>> musician), which I guess you could call a panhandler. However, if
>>>> you
>>>> start talking about banning busking, we might have to come to
>>>> blows... ;)
>>>>
>>>> The other problem is people standing in medians with signs
>>>> collecting money. The concern here seems to come from three
>>>> sources: concern for the
>>>> image of the city, concern about drivers being bothered, and
>>>> concern for
>>>> the well-being of those standing in the middle of a busy
>>>> intersection. The
>>>> first two concerns are legitimate, but frankly I think both the
>>>> Constitution and a sense of moral decency prevent us from passing
>>>> statutes
>>>> restricting where people can and can't be because we think they
>>>> look bad.
>>>> For concern for the safety of the panhandlers themselves, I don't
>>>> think the
>>>> best way to address this is through ordinances. Could we instead
>>>> produce
>>>> an informational card with the names, numbers, and locations of
>>>> social
>>>> agencies which can help people in need, then distribute these to
>>>> people to
>>>> hand out to panhandlers? Research also shows that college
>>>> students are far
>>>> more likely than others to give money to panhandlers. I don't
>>>> think that's
>>>> a bad thing -- I think it's a sign of ethical and moral compulsion
>>>> on the
>>>> side of the students, but could we try to put that to work better
>>>> by organizing interested students into service teams to take food
>>>> to people
>>>> who need it, and to try to help them find services which can help
>>>> them? I
>>>> can't believe that the best way to solve this is by just telling
>>>> the police
>>>> to take a break from silly activities like chasing murderers and
>>>> help chase
>>>> off the dirty people.
>>>>
>>>> In short, this is just not a very good proposal, and again, I'm
>>>> very glad
>>>> to see that it's currently headed for an early death.
>>>>
>>>> -Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --On Monday, January 16, 2006 6:26 PM +0000 pac2 at yahoogroups.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Message: 1
>>>> > Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:11:15 -0500
>>>> > From: "Ken Gasch" <ken.gasch at hldproductions.com>
>>>> > Subject: N&O: Durham council cool to begging ban
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Durham council cool to begging ban
>>>> > County official's push is lost on city
>>>> > Eric Ferreri, Staff Writer
>>>> > A county commissioner's desire to ban roadway solicitation and
>>>> > panhandling doesn't appear to have much backing from Durham City
>>>> Council.
>>>> > Even if ultimately approved by the county, Commissioner Lewis
>>>> Cheek's
>>>> > proposal would be largely ineffective unless city leaders buy
>>>> into the
>>>> > idea.
>>>> >
>>>> > "Right now, I don't think there's a sense of the majority of the
>>>> council
>>>> > that we want to get into it again," Mayor Bill Bell said. "In
>>>> terms of
>>>> > issues we're dealing with in the city, I don't think it's very
>>>> high up."
>>>> >
>>>> > The county has no ordinance governing panhandling or
>>>> solicitation. The
>>>> > city approved an ordinance in 2003 that allows panhandlers as
>>>> long as
>>>> > they are licensed and wear a vest. It also covers fund-raisers
>>>> who ask
>>>> > for donations and vendors who hawk newspapers from highway
>>>> medians. It
>>>> > restricts soliciting to daylight hours, limits the size of signs
>>>> to 2
>>>> > feet and designates where people can stand when flagging down
>>>> motorists.
>>>> >
>>>> > No county ordinance is enforceable inside city limits unless the
>>>> council
>>>> > has an identical ordinance or endorses it. Most roads Cheek is
>>>> targeting
>>>> > -- such as several U.S. 15-501 intersections -- are in the city.
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheek, who as a City Council member in 2003 pushed
>>>> unsuccessfully for a
>>>> > total ban, broached his new idea during a county board meeting
>>>> earlier
>>>> > this week and received some positive feedback from his fellow
>>>> > commissioners, who pledged to discuss the issue further.
>>>> >
>>>> > But Bell and City Council members said Tuesday it doesn't seem a
>>>> likely
>>>> > city priority.
>>>> >
>>>> > "We'll see what the county does, but this would not be on top of
>>>> > my priorities," council member Eugene Brown said. "The city can
>>>> only do so
>>>> > much."
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheek said his idea is rooted in part in a desire to boost
>>>> Durham's image
>>>> > but is also an attempt to help some of the folks who spend their
>>>> days in
>>>> > traffic, begging for money. On Tuesday, he acknowledged the
>>>> uphill climb
>>>> > his proposal faces.
>>>> >
>>>> > "Realistically, for it to have any real impact, the city would
>>>> have to
>>>> > buy into it," he said. "I would hope they would listen to my
>>>> concerns."
>>>> >
>>>> > Staff writer Eric Ferreri can be reached at 956-2415 or
>>>> > eric.ferreri at newsobserver.com.
>>>> >
>>>> > ? Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company
>>>> > A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > [This message contained attachments]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ***
>>>>
>>>> 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! ***
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> SPONSORED LINKS
>>>> Law enforcement
>>>>
>>>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Law+enforcement&w1=Law+enforcement
>>>> &c=1&s=21&.sig=iaGm9SJXqE8hpaptznqtAw>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ----- YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>>>
>>>> * Visit your group "pac2
>>>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pac2>" on the web.
>>>>
>>>> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>> pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>>>> <mailto:pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>>>> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Bill Anderson (919) 688 4550
>> Council for Senior Citizens
>> at the
>> Durham Center for Senior Life
>> 406 Rigsbee Ave, Durham, N.C. 27701
>> "Promoting the highest level of well being of older adults in Durham
>> County"
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 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
>>
>> * Visit your group "pac2" on the web.
>>
>> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>>
>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
Bill
Bill Anderson (919) 688 4550
Council for Senior Citizens
at the
Durham Center for Senior Life
406 Rigsbee Ave, Durham, N.C. 27701
"Promoting the highest level of well being of older adults in Durham County"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20060119/b8da8bec/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the INC-list
mailing list