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

Fri Apr 21 15:00:16 EDT 2006

Barry,

I do not believe this is simply about "busting a relative handful of people 
who are soliciting spare change on the public right-of-way."

We have many resources currently in place for folks who want to get off the 
streets.  The vast majority of our vagrants do not want to take advantage of 
this help.  Panhandling is enabling these folks to stay where there are.  As 
long as the money continues to flow, these addicts will continue to abuse 
their chemical of choice.

When they pass out in the freezing cold, they will develop pneumonia.  The 
booze they drink morning, noon and night will cause their livers to begin to 
fail.  They will seek medical attention at our emergency rooms.  We will pay 
to treat them because it is what we should do.  The doctors will patch them 
up and they will go back out on the streets to get sick again.

I believe that this resolution will save tax payers much more money than it 
will cost.  I believe that cutting the flow of money will increase the 
number of folks who will seek the help they need.  I believe that the folks 
who will still not accept help will move on to another town where 
panhandling is accepted.

Also, INC and PAC2 are working to form partnerships with our city's property 
managers.  We should refrain from using the term "pressure" when we talk 
about what we would like for our new partners to do.  Let's try to see the 
situation from their eyes.  Let's work at the same table to reach our goals.

You are correct, my "map comment" was a not appropriate.  I apologize.

Respectfully,

Ken Gasch

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bragin at nc.rr.com>
To: <TheOcean1 at aol.com>
Cc: <newman at nc.rr.com>; <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>; <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April 
25 meeting

>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ***
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
> 