INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April 25 meeting
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Fri Apr 21 10:11:36 EDT 2006
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 that 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 took 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
***
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20060421/3008756b/attachment.htm
More information about the INC-list
mailing list