INC NEWS - solicitation limits out of streets and highways
Mike - Hotmail
mwshiflett at hotmail.com
Fri Apr 21 12:57:45 EDT 2006
To clarify this issue.
INC did not bring this proposal to the county.
Commissioner Lewis Cheek did.
INC was asked to consider it, evaluate it's impact, submit constructive criticism and provide their respective neighborhoods an opportunity to comment about it.
There are a number of other initiatives that INC is providing a venue and educational platform for residents and neighborhood associations (and Homeowners Associations) an opportunity to learn about.
INC recognizes the importance of working with neighborhoods and not pitting them against each other.
This is one of the reasons INC has supported and encouraged attendees to also be involved in their individual District PAC's.
INC recognized many years ago that it can not be the 'be all' or 'do all' for every issue involving every neighborhood or district within the county.
It has to form coalitions.
It also has proven that it respects the work and energy other volunteer, non-profit and city agencies do for its citizens.
Melvin is correct, there are other problems much more serious than solicitations and panhandling in Durham.
But to ignore the opportunity to involve and inform people about any proposed legislation, ordinance or state statute when asked to is not what INC is about.
Over the years (especially since Melvin Whitley was President) INC has taken many positive positions on any number of initiatives he has brought to us.
To fail to put as much effort and not allowing debate regarding each one when we are asked to do so would be disingenuous.
All we ask is that you consider each issue on it's own merits.
All the dots are connected.
What happens in my neighborhood affects those in my friends neighborhood and vice versa.
As long as I've been a member of INC, this has been what has connected us.
I pray that this will always be the case.
mike shiflett
----- Original Message -----
From: Rev. Melvin Whitley
To: Newman Aguiar ; inc-list at durhaminc.org
Cc: pac2 at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 11:37 AM
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
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
1.. ordinance is never enforced - panhandling continues (most likely scenario based on the data)
2.. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/e976202d/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the INC-list
mailing list