INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April 25 meeting
bragin at nc.rr.com
bragin at nc.rr.com
Fri Apr 21 10:27:17 EDT 2006
i still have to poll the DPNA board on this, so these are my opinions,
not our official position.
while the language of the current proposal is much less odious than the
previous proposal, this to me is a much lower priority issue than
getting the current housing/zoning codes, violations of which are
reported and repeatedly ignored, enforced in a timely manner. i'd much
rather see more pressure put on landlords and property managers who
neglect their properties to start conforming with our existing codes,
or going after illegal dumpers, than have the police spending their
time busting a relative handful of people who are soliciting spare
change on the public right-of-way.
the bang for the buck return on this proposal is going to be relatively
small.
barry ragin
----- Original Message -----
From: TheOcean1 at aol.com
Date: Friday, April 21, 2006 9:11 am
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for
April 25 meeting
To: newman at nc.rr.com, pac2 at yahoogrou
ps.com
Cc: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>
>
> 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 th
at 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 to
ok 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
>
>
>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list