INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutionsfor April 25 meeting

Fri Apr 21 11:43:46 EDT 2006

There is a correlation between appearance issues and the violent
behavior from that gun.   It isn't either/or, its both/and and
appearances issues are also key to having the resources to get that
violence under control.

Reyn Bowman

________________________________

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Rev. Melvin Whitley
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:37 AM
To: Newman Aguiar; inc-list at durhaminc.org
Cc: pac2 at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutionsfor
April 25 meeting

This is a non-issue in East Durham. Last year we had 147 people shot by
people who had no legal right to have gun or bullets. INC is upset about
panhandlers while a 13 year ago boy is fighting for his life from a gun
wound to his back. Somehow I feel their is a disconnect between those
who have and those who have not. We still have a problem with broken
windows while others are have a problem with people asking for help.
Newman with I was their I would vote against it has well. 

Your Servant
Rev. Melvin Whitley
2614 Harvard Ave
Durham NC  27703
(919) 596-9691 - Home
(919) 308-2844 - Cell
tellmelvin at nc.rr.com 
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency
may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice.
They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight.
You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of
the current President.

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Newman Aguiar <mailto:newman at nc.rr.com>  

	To: inc-list at durhaminc.org 

	Cc: pac2 at yahoogroups.com 

	Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 11:19 PM

	Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed
resolutions for April 25 meeting

	Indeed, Bill.  As you and Ken are well aware, if I didn't have
an ongoing conflict with the meeting date, you know I would be there
with bells on.

	Regardless of how the proposed change is worded, based on the
efforts of other cities and well documented evidence of these efforts,
we have two options (permit me to oversimplify):

	1.	Stop giving money to panhandlers (or any roadside
vendor) - give to your favorite charity - panhandling reduces or stops -
community wins (NO COST OPTION) (Note:  removing street vending has been
shown to have negative effects on local economy; conversely, managed
street vending has been shown to have positive economic effects on the
local community) 
	2.	Enact the proposed ordinance change 

		a.	ordinance is never enforced - panhandling
continues (most likely scenario based on the data) 
		b.	ordinance is enforced (consistently or
selectively) - taxpayers pay significant cost for enforcement - we feel
like we have done something useful - panhandling continues (perhaps,
gets displaced) (COSTLY) (Add to costs, the negative economic impact
caused by removal of street vendors) 

	The evidence is out there.  Nothing in the proposed change
offers any new idea that hasn't already been tested and failed.  Perhaps
there is the public will to go forward with the proposed change.  You
and Ken have stated how you will vote.  I cannot be at the meeting, so I
won't be voting.  I really don't know where our community stands on
this.  I truly hope we don't go down a path that will be costly and do
nothing to change the situation and perhaps, make it worse (since, if
enforced, very likely some street vendors will be converted to
panhandlers).

	Newman 

________________________________

	From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
[mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of TheOcean1 at aol.com
	Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:26 PM
	To: ken.gasch at hldproductions.com; inc-list at durhaminc.org
	Cc: pac2 at yahoogroups.com
	Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed
resolutions for April 25 meeting

	Newman

	 I'll second that. Was at both meetings, and speak for all when
I say your presence is dearly missed. Not being at either meeting
doesn't lessen the weight of your words Newman, we all know and respect
you, and understand you've looked into the efforts of other cities, etc.

	 However, the current phrasing is much more "let's find a better
solution than having our needy stand on the curb and beg", than it is an
"anti panhandling" effort. I understand other cities have semi-failed,
but it is even more insane to continue delivering undocumented amounts
of cash in an unsafe location... namely our intersections.

	 I will be supporting the motion, but always hope the
neighborhoods come get the story first hand. 

	Tues, April 25 at 7pm in the Herald Sun building on Pickett Road

	Bill Anderson

	In a message dated 4/20/2006 9:42:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ken.gasch at hldproductions.com writes:

		Newman,

		I was present when Lewis Cheek came to speak about this
proposal at both 
		PAC2 and at INC.  I have given the matter a great deal
of thought.  I have 
		visited at length with "solicitors" in my neighborhood.
I have come to the 
		conclusion that this change in our solicitation
ordinance will positively 
		impact the current situation.  I hope that neighborhood
reps show up and 
		vote in favor of this change.

		Respectfully,

		Ken Gasch

		ORDINANCE REGULATIN SOLICITATION ON THE

		STREETS AND HIGHWAYS OF DURHAM COUNTY

		WHEREAS, pursuant to N.C.G.S.  153a-121-153A-125, and
153A-176, the Board of 
		Commissioner may regulate begging, solicitation
campaigns, and salesmen; and

		WHEREAS, begging and the solicitation of money for
charities or businesses 
		in the streets and highways of Durham poses a
significant hazard both to 
		pedestrian and motorists, and

		WHEREAS, begging and the solicitation of money in the
streets and highways 
		of Durham poses a significant opportunity for fraud and
misrepresentation,

		NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
COUNTY OF DURHAM DOTH 
		ORDAIN:

		  1.. That the Durham County Code of Ordinances is
hereby amended by adding 
		a new article to be numbered Article IV of Chapter 22,
which article reads 
		as follows;

		ARTICLE IV.  SOLICITATION ON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS

		Sec 22-61  Solicitations defined

		            For the purposes of this article, "solicit"
shall mean the 
		asking for money or objects of value, with the intention
that the money or 
		object be transferred at that time, and at that place.
Solicitation shall 
		include using the spoke, written or printed word bodily
gestures, signs, or 
		other means with the purpose of obtaining an immediate
donation of money or 
		other thing of value or soliciting the sale of goods or
services.

		Sec 22-61 Solicitation prohibited
		            It shall be unlawful for any person to
solicit an operator of 
		other occupant of a motor vehicle while such vehicle is
located on any 
		street or highway.  Provided, however, that this section
shall not apply to 
		services rendered in connection with emergency repairs
request by the 
		operator or passenger of such vehicle.

		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

		  2.. This Ordinance shall be effective on ratification

		This the _____day of______, 2006

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: "Newman Aguiar" <newman at nc.rr.com>
		To: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
		Cc: <TrinityPark at yahoogroups.com>;
<pac2 at yahoogroups.com>
		Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:11 PM
		Subject: [pac2] RE: INC NEWS - agenda and proposed
resolutions for April 25 
		meeting

		>* Vendors in Roadside Right of Way -- FINAL VOTE
		>
		> "We, the membership of the Inter-neighborhood Council,
support a change to
		> Durham's current solicitation ordinance that would bar
solicitation from
		> rights-of-way in Durham."
		>
		> I hope sufficient neighborhood reps show up for the
April 25 meeting to 
		> vote
		> this down.  There has been significant discussion on
this issue and it
		> troubles me that INC would take up a resolution in
support of a change, 
		> even
		> though strong evidence has been shown, that such a
change would do little 
		> or
		> nothing to address the current situation.
		>
		> Newman
		>
		>
		>
		>
		> ***
		>
		> 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/
		>
		>
		>
		> 

		_______________________________________________
		INC-list mailing list
		INC-list at rtpnet.org
		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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20060421/3fe0a4d2/attachment-0001.htm 