[Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions

Wed Jan 21 13:53:19 EST 2009

We already have Amber Alert signs that the government installed along the
highways mentioned.  They are off when not in use.  If the billboard
industry wants their signs to be seen on highways, they are welcome to build
private highways on private land and pay for them with their private
billboards.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  I wonder what the dozens and dozens of non-profits, bond referendum
> proponents, the school merger initiative and other benefactors of the
> generosity of the industry (not just Fairway) over the years would say about
> "There is no public need for billboards........."  or future parents of
> abducted children, confused elderly or the mentally disabled and lost
> regarding the benefit they provide the community?
>
> While I have never directly benefited from those donations,  I believe
> there are some people out there that have,  and quite possibly will.
>
> Isn't there room for compromise somewhere here?
>
> Does it hurt to try and find out, if there is?
>
>
> Mike Shiflett
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* TheOcean1 at aol.com
> *To:* inc-list at rtpnet.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:22 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Durham INC] Billboard proposal
>
>  Tom
> I agree with much of what you've said, one exception is the first sentence,
> "I'm not sure I understand why some of you say we don't know what
> Fairway's proposal is."
>
> I'd say we only know what it "was", before they pulled it. More than agree
> with your comment, "suppose they may change it at some point in the future",
> as that would seem like the only logical reason for pulling it.
> Since we both suspect they'll propose something different, I also agree we
> shouldn't worry about that until it happens.
>
> Until that time, valuable dialogue is still possible. I shouldn't need to
> remind Tom Miller, Durham wouldn't be having any discussion. You were
> foresighted enough 20 years ago to make Durham a very different county in
> regards to billboards, so the contrast is already visible as you pass the
> county lines.
> Get crazy foresighted with me for a minute, imagine a drive from Greensboro
> to Durham 100 years in the future. Hard to imagine what we are seeing! But I
> bet we see those same electronic billboards in Burlington that sprang up
> there a century ago, without the discussions they had in Durham, or the
> efforts two decades before that gave rise to any say in the matter.
>
> Our laws were crafted wisely, with the intent of getting rid of billboards,
> allowing them to remain only for their "useful Lifetime", so as not to cause
> a financial hardship for the owners. After it effectively "falls of it's own
> accord", no new billboards would be built to replace it. Sounds good. So
> eventually, maybe not in our lifetimes, Durham would be billboard
> free....... hypothetically.
>
> I think 100 years from now, they will still be standing. Can't describe
> what is behind them, but all the Burlington billboards are now electronic,
> and there's a major contrast when you cross the county line into Durham. The
> billboards are still there, but they are the old fashioned ones, with paper
> and light shining onto them, instead of from them. Maybe this is good, and
> gives us an antique feel.
> But why are they still here one hundred years later?
>
> We know today, that we don't want to see these things past their useful
> lifetime, but we also don't want to have an eye sore sitting beside the
> highway while we watch it rot for it's last few decades. So our current
> laws give the industry the right to spend 25% of each billboard's value each
> year on upkeep.
> That meant they can replace one pole this year, and another pole next year,
> and a face the following year, thereby allowing them to rebuild the whole
> sign often enough.... they are still gonna be here in the year 2109.
>
> Maybe they look awful. Paper might become very expensive in a nearly
> paperless society, so maybe they stretch the use way too far. Maybe the
> faded billboards are a unique feature, perhaps non existent in other
> counties, and a cool funky welcome to Durham, like cows on top of our
> stores.
> Maybe the paper billboards will no longer be a viable business due only to
> the cost of paper. And we'll credit the extinction to paper costs, not the
> laws we have now.
>
> I'll bet 100 years from now we'll still be longing to see the trees, or
> what's left of them, behind almost all of Durham's current billboards. A few
> more will be gone, due to us buying one or two for a road, or a tornado
> coming through, but we'll still have the mass majority of them, and no
> better idea what their expected lifetimes are than we know today.
>
> Maybe then the industry will approach our great grand kids and offer to
> chop down all their existing signs in exchange for a single electronic one
> at each end of our county. And make every sixth message a Durham controlled
> ad. Then Durham's distinction would be being billboard free, but not if our
> great grandkids refuse to even listen to the industry's proposals.
>
> Same thing is true today. If we don't come to a resolution, our kids should
> make the call, or their kids, or our great grandkids 100 years from now.
>
> But each generation should do two things, listen to proposals, lest we
> stick ourselves with laws that might not work in the future. Certainly won't
> hurt us to re-examine the laws every so often, to see that they are still
> the best choice, once every 25-50 years, or maybe every 20 years, meaning
> we're about due.
>
> Two things, listen to proposals when they are put on the table, and don't
> worry too much until that happens. Listening never hurts you, not listening
> is rarely the best choice, and you're almost always better off without
> worry, too.
>
> Sorry so long,
>
> Bill Anderson
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/20/2009 6:27:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com writes:
>
>  I'm not sure I understand why some of you say we don't know what
> Fairway's proposal is.  They have put it in writing to the city and county
> twice and they explained it to us at the last INC meeting.  Assuming that
> they meant what they said, I think I understand their proposal very
> clearly.  While I suppose they may change it at some point in the future,
> I'm not going to worry about that until it happens.
>
>
>
> Based on what I know, which is what Fairway has told us, I oppose their
> proposal to change Durham's zoning ordinances to allow them and their
> competitors to upgrade their billboards.  I oppose the proposal on all its
> points.  Remember, under the proposal, some signs would change to the
> flashing variety, some would be moved, and others, pole-mounted, would be
> put on steel masts.  All of the billboards in question are nonconforming
> uses and they shouldn't be upgraded.  It isn't fair and it is contrary to
> Durham's sound and successful policy.  There is no public need for
> billboards and there is no compelling reason to allow this industry (and
> especially not its dominant firm) better than we treat any other citizen who
> could make more money if he could get special treatment under the zoning
> ordinances.
>
>
>
> Tom Miller
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
> **
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62>
> *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>
>

-- 
--Joshua
allen.joshua at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090121/9f159af7/attachment.htm>