[Durham INC] [owdna] Re: [pac2] Developments regarding Electronic billboards in Durham
Mike - Hotmail
mwshiflett at hotmail.com
Mon Jan 19 16:30:48 EST 2009
Can we stop the use of individual tits for tats? They should be responded to 'off-line'.
Personal attacks on how a person feels about this has the potential to fill everyone's mail box with unwanted email.
Individuals have a right to their own opinion, but attacking someone for asking questions, taking an opposing position and/or questioning someone elses integrity is out of bounds on a listserve (no matter who's it is).
Let's stick to the issues and substantive proposals themselves.
Mike Shiflett
----- Original Message -----
From: TheOcean1 at aol.com
To: kjj1 at duke.edu ; mkirinus at gmail.com
Cc: mwshiflett at hotmail.com ; michael at snowplow.org ; pac2 at yahoogroups.com ; owdna at yahoogroups.com ; inc-list at durhaminc.org
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [owdna] Re: [pac2] Developments regarding Electronic billboards in Durham
Kelly
I have no vested interest in having all of us consider any proposal.... because there isn't any proposal yet!
You seem pretty vested in getting everyone to make up their minds before they've even heard what is being proposed. Why?
Try the same question I asked John, "If Fairway offered to take down all of their signs in exchange for one single electronic board, would you vote for that?"
How would you vote, Kelly?
If you know what they are proposing, please share it. If you don't know, then why the push to get everyone to vote prior to hearing it? What's the rush?
Bill
In a message dated 1/19/2009 3:57:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kjj1 at duke.edu writes:
Marcia--
Your point is well taken. And Rodrigo's email was simple & to the point.
I can see why Fairway and their hired representatives want Durhams existing prohibition of electronic billboards overturned. What I don't understand is what Mike and Bill have invested in having all of us consider Fairway's proposal? Why they insist on putting "compromise" on the table? Why should we even consider overturning our existing billboard ordinances to allow electronic billboards? It seems likely to me that the reason there's no text to consider is that Fairway withdrew proposed text when they sensed the depth of community resistance to their electronic billboards.
The bit about Durham's foodie culture being saved by electronic billboard ads directing hungry highway drivers to an independent restaurant is perhaps the most entertaining fantasy I've read so far. As if the success of Durham's foodie culture will be helped by electronic billboards . . . . why do we need to be good enough to warrant coverage in Southern Living, Food & Wine, Gourmet, or any other national publication when our home-grown foodie restaurants can be saved by Fairway's electronic billboards.
Kelly
Marcia Kirinus wrote:
Mike - Seems like the community has made up it's mind. I'm not sure I would constitute a firm resolve as an 'emotional reaction'. The only thing I'm confused about is why you want to encourage Fairway to continue discussions. What's in it for you? If you have opposing views, stop beating your chest, and tell us (all) why we need to be pro billboards. No theatrics, no innuendoes, no finger pointing - what is good? What facts do you want to share with the rest of us that could perhaps sway us? I never thought of the greater part of Durham as narrow minded. By 'greater' I mean bigger NOT better. Why go through years worth of negotiations when it is obvious that billboards are not wanted. I just don't get your point.
With respect, Marcia on Carolina.
On Jan 19, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Mike - Hotmail wrote:
Thanks Mike B. for at least be willing to listen.
What I find confusing is the emotional reaction people have to billboards.
Like you, I've tried to remain objective and listen to both sides before
taking a position. I've even willing to participate in discussions, if
asked, to get everything that's spoken written down to make sure we're
accurate in the decision making process.
Which I'd like to see compared to the long series of discussions that just
took place recently regarding a very large development proposal near our
neighborhoods.
While I was not personally involved in them, I trusted the folks who were
to represent the best interests of the community.
From what I understand, neither side agreed with each other in the
beginning. Even along the way, several proposals and drafts were rejected
for one reason or another, but eventually each side came to an agreement
that they could live with (literally in their back yards).
That took a lot of time, effort, debate, argument, counter point, compromise
and understanding on several sides (city, neighborhood and developer) over
months and months of meetings, but I believe from the recent newspaper
articles and the decision to support it by the planning commission that they
came to a very workable solution.
I'm just as concerned about the brightness, neighborhood intrusion, past
litigation and visual blight billboards are currently associated with, just
like most of us are.
Why can't this same process be followed and as much effort put into finding
a better solution to what we have now vs. what may be agreed to, IN
WRITING, so that everyone has had an opportunity to see what's possible.
There's a lot of rhetoric and chest beating going on regarding billboards on
our listserves and in the papers. Some of it is warranted, some of it not.
But before anyone takes a final position on this issue, doesn't it make
sense to discuss it based on facts and written enforceable documentation
rather than innuendo and theatrics?
It's my understanding that these new digital billboards have an integrated
light sensor that doesn't allow them to get any brighter (and sometime
significantly so) than the current way of lighting them. I also understand
that they're proposing to use a local source and donate time/space(as
they've done for many years) to non-profits and community sponsored issues
that significantly affect Durham's bottom line. Where's that role or
participation in the community stand with us? Are they willing to thin out
some of their billboards along areas that WE feel ought to have significant
additional buffers? What's enforceable that can be included into our
ordinances to prevent future litigation? Can solar and wind energy counter
their carbon footprint or counter it vs. what's happening now?
Before asking people to take a stand 'fer or agin it' maybe there's still
time to start getting at what's really bothering us about them and to come
up with better proposals and solutions, rather than telling people that the
community has already made up it's mind.
Have you?
"It is better to debate a question without settling it, than to settle a
question without debating it"
--Jespeh Joubert
Mike Shiflett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bacon" <michael at snowplow.org>
To: "Mike - Hotmail" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
Cc: "owdNA" <owdna at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [owdna] Re: [pac2] Developments regarding Electronic billboards
in Durham
(Apparently I missed the OWDNA list when replying. Reposted for full
coverage... :)
Mike,
I may be missing something, but last time I checked, 147, 15-501, 70,
and
85 ran near our homes, schools, churches, and parks?
The biggest part of the proposal is to allow lighted electronic
billboards.
There's no reason we need them and no reason they're good for Durham,
other than to line Fairway's pocketbooks.
I have not so fond memories of Fairway when they spent tons of campaign
money to knock a few cracks in Asheville's billboard ordinances, then
immediately went on a building spree, coating the town with new
billboards
and increasing the sizes of existing ones. One was so reviled that a
rebellious soul went and chainsawed the thing in half, prompting weeks
of
laudatory letters to the editor in the Citizen-Times. I've seen at
least a
previous generation of what Fairway Outdoor Advertising has in mind for
what it thinks is just a little improvement, and I can say quite
clearly, I want none of it.
I've been quiet on this issue, but only because I'm a bit overwhelmed
with
other stuff at the moment. But while I respect the sentiment of, "cool
down, let's take a look at this," ask any current or former resident of
Asheville about this firm, and they'll tell you.
Don't. Trust. Fairway.
-Michael
On Jan 16, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Mike - Hotmail wrote:
As far as I've been able to understand from listening to both sides of
this
issue, at no time have I heard or seen evidence that the billboard
industry
is proposing to put up new ".........flashing billboards near our
homes,
schools, churches, and parks." From the previous INC meeting and from
what
I've read in the newspapers, they only want to have them along the
current
legal locations that they are now. That being US85, 15-501, 70 and
147.
I have not heard that they are looking at upgrading any signs to
digital
anywhere near any of the above.
Can someone can provide confirmation or evidence of this?
In the meantime, I'm still trying to understand exactly what it being
proposed and presented in the text amendment.
Mike Shiflett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Jarrett" <kjj1 at duke.edu>
To: "owdNA" <owdna at yahoogroups.com>; "PAC2" <pac2 at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 9:41 AM
Subject: [pac2] Developments regarding Electronic billboards in Durham
For those who have been following the electronic billboard issue, the
following might be of interest:
Forwarded from INC listserv:
folks,
Let us celebrate a victory for the community...
In choosing to do nothing, the DDI board decided not to support the
billboard industry.
This decision represents a set-back for those trying to stick big,
bright,
flashing billboards near our homes, schools, churches, and parks.
(Thanks go
to those DDI board members who spoke out against this terrible idea.)
The struggle continues to stop the billboard industry from overturning
the
current ban on electronic billboards in Durham.
But today we celebrate a victory for common sense.
have a great weekend,
John
January 15, 2009
Mr. Paul Hickman
General Manager
Fairway Outdoor Advertising
P. O. Box 10545
Raleigh, NC 27605
Dear Paul,
Several weeks ago Steve Toler and you asked that the DDI Board of
Directors
consider your request to the City of Durham related to revised text
amendment language related to the outdoor advertising industry in
Durham.
What follows is a summary of the DDI Board’s lengthy and thoughtful
discussion, and its decision.
As DDI understands, last summer, Fairway Outdoor Advertising submitted
an
application, which is still pending, for a text amendment revision to
the
UDO related to Durham’s billboard ordinance. After submitting its
application, Fairway representatives met with members of Planning
Department, which forwarded the application to the Joint City-County
Planning Committee for review. The JCCPC recommended to Fairway that it
begin a process of meeting with community organizations to discuss the
billboard proposal. Following the JCCPC meeting, we understand that
Fairway
withdrew the draft language portion of its text amendment application;
and,
in good faith, began scheduling meetings for its community outreach
effort.
After completing its community outreach effort, Fairway may re-submit
revised draft text amendment language as part of its current
application.
So, technically, until Fairway re-submits formal draft text amendment
language for its application, currently there is no formal text
amendment
“on the table.”
While there is no formal text amendment language to consider at this
time,
DDI recognizes the substantial community interest about this issue,
and in
keeping with DDI’s long standing effort to lend its voice to the
discussion
of important community issues, and responding to a request of Fairway,
a DDI
Partner in Progress, the DDI Board of Directors held a lengthy and
thoughtful discussion at its meeting on January 15th.
After very careful consideration of facts as understood by the members
present, and of the pros and cons of how this issue relates to our
community, and in particular downtown, members of the Board of
Directors
were unable to come to a consensus on any recommendation, and
therefore DDI
voted to take no action related to this issue.
In the interest of disclosure to Fairway and the public, the Board
asked
that I elaborate on the reason for our decision to take no action.
The Board’s discussion focused on three main areas: the repair and
landscaping of billboards currently in our community; the possible
relocation of billboards within the community; and, the issue of
allowing
digital billboards.
Board members did wish to encourage the repair and landscaping of
billboards
currently in our community. Members were of the opinion that given the
unsightly nature of many Durham roadsides, and of some billboards, our
community’s appearance would benefit from the repair and landscaping of
current billboards. However, repair or upgrade of billboards is
difficult.
As DDI understands, the current Durham billboard ordinance allows for
routine maintenance and for repairs as long as those repairs do not
exceed
25% of the value of the billboard in any given year, or the repairs do
not
use substantially different materials. For example, if an outdoor
advertising company attempted to replace a wood billboard frame with a
metal
frame, it would be difficult to make the upgrade since wood is a very
different material than metal, and the cost would probably exceed 25%
of the
value of the billboard.
In regard to the issue of relocation of billboards, Board members were
uncertain of any criteria that have been recommended to insure that any
relocated billboard would not harm the visual appeal of any Durham
neighborhood, including downtown. For example, without specific
guidelines,
Board members discussed whether or not billboards could be erected in
an
area that might result in an unsightly cluster effect, or might harm a
neighborhood’s curb appeal, or, in the case of downtown, might block
downtown’s emerging skyline. As a result of this uncertainty, the
Board
recommends to the community that if Fairway re-submits text amendment
language, the issue of relocation would benefit from a community
discussion
about appropriate criteria for relocation; and, that serious thought
should
be given to the formation of a commission of government, community and
industry representatives which would consider any relocation of
billboards
along Durham’s main
corridors.
Very serious consideration was given to the issue of allowing digital
billboards in our community. Members of the Board could come to no
consensus on whether or not digital billboards brought value or harm
to our
community --- and it was clear that a consensus was not going to be
achieved. If one assumes that digital billboards are an effective
message
provider, some Board members saw value in digital billboards as they
relate
to marketing downtown events, providing opportunities for less
expensive
marketing for downtown businesses, and providing amber alerts and other
emergency messages that could benefit our community. On the other
hand,
other Board members were concerned about the visual impact of digital
billboards, especially since no one could be certain where future
digital
billboards might be located (other than on main corridors, and near
commercial areas), and what impact they might have on any neighborhood
(some
neighborhoods may be located
near commercial areas) in Durham. Since Board members were simply not
knowledgeable about where digital billboards would be located, and
therefore
would not know what impact they might have on any neighborhood, Board
members could not reach any consensus.
In the final analysis, the DDI Board of Directors is composed of 45
thoughtful business, community and political leaders. These 45 people
will
have different opinions of what is good, or not good, for our
community’s
future growth. Sometimes, not often, reaching a consensus on a
controversial community issue is simply not possible. And, in those
instances, we have an obligation to agree to disagree with each other,
and
vote to take the action to take no action.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss my Board’s decision
further, please feel free to give me a call.
Cordially yours,
William A. Kalkhof
President
Cc: Mr. Steve Toler
------------------------------------
***
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
------------------------------------
*** A neighborly note: if you intend to reply to an individual who has
posted (but don't intend it to go to the listserv), make sure that you
have the recipient's email address in your "TO:" line and not
"owdna at yahoogroups.com". Thanks! ***Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
*** A neighborly note: if you intend to reply to an individual who has
posted (but don't intend it to go to the listserv), make sure that you have
the recipient's email address in your "TO:" line and not
"owdna at yahoogroups.com". Thanks! ***Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------
*** A neighborly note: if you intend to reply to an individual who has posted (but don't intend it to go to the listserv), make sure that you have the recipient's email address in your "TO:" line and not "owdna at yahoogroups.com". Thanks! ***Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/owdna/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/owdna/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:owdna-digest at yahoogroups.com
mailto:owdna-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
owdna-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
__._,_.___
***
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! ***
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090119/acaeadad/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list