INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for April25 meeting

Mike - Hotmail mwshiflett at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 21 15:21:29 EDT 2006 

All,

Ken's assertion is incorrect.

This ordinance is not about getting panhandlers to move on to other greener 
pastures.

It's about safety!

It's about one of the basic templates of civil government....health and 
safety of its citizens.

Commissioner Cheek believes that it is inheritantly unsafe for anyone 
(newspaper salepeople, fund raisers, panhandlers, kids peddling Krispy Kreme 
donuts or a car wash) to be allowed to perform those activities on a street 
or highway.

Period!

It is not all about panhandlers, but it includes them if they want to 
solicit money on the street or highways (in the county).

This proposed ordinance does not limit panhandling or solicitations on 
sidewalks or in driveways, bank parking lots or where car washes are being 
done......as long as it isn't on a street or highway.

It's about making sure that there are ordinances in place that protect us 
(as operators of motor vehicles) from dodging anything other than other 
vehicles or pedestrians crossing the street in designated crosswalks.

Our streets and highways were designed and engineered to perform these 
functions,  not be a store front or place for alms to exchange hands.

Ken's posting is one of the many reason's the discussion revolving around 
this proposal has taken off n so many other paths.

In considering it's merits,  consider it's true intentions!

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,



I encourage everyone to reread the wording of the purposed ordinance,  then 
decide if you feel safer with these activities or without them.



mike shiflett



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Gasch" <ken.gasch at hldproductions.com>
To: <bragin at nc.rr.com>
Cc: <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>; <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - [pac2] RE: agenda and proposed resolutions for 
April25 meeting


> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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