[Durham INC] "Is INC for neighborhoods anymore? I wonder, asks Tom Miller" -- from Rosemarie Kitchin (Falconbridge)

Wed Jan 21 20:40:55 EST 2009

Former INC president Tom Miller asks: 
"Is INC for neighborhoods anymore? I wonder."

I am a Durham replant (lived here first between 1995-2001, and chose to return to Durham life in 2004). 

Tom's question called up memories of my 1990s INC experience when INC representatives sat in on every City Council and County Commissioner meeting to ensure that "due process" was followed, and the interests of neighborhoods were well represented as decisions were made. (Yes, we can watch both groups' meetings online, so monitoring has changed.) 

INC will celebrate its 25th anniversary this year. 

As a new member of INC's executive committee, I welcome your input (off listserv at rkitchin at mac.com) about what INC should be and how best INC can represent our neighborhoods and our community interests for the good of Durham and our best possible life here. 

Thanks for your input,
   Rosemarie Kitchin

On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:04:45 PM, inc-list-request at rtpnet.org wrote:
From:   inc-list-request at rtpnet.org
Subject:    INC-list Digest, Vol 49, Issue 57
Date:   January 21, 2009 8:04:45 PM EST
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Send INC-list mailing list submissions to
inc-list at rtpnet.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
inc-list-request at rtpnet.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
inc-list-owner at rtpnet.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of INC-list digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Billboard proposal discussions (Joshua Allen)
2. Re: Billboard proposal discussions (Tom Miller)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:14:41 -0500
From: Joshua Allen <allen.joshua at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions
To: RW Pickle <randy at 27beverly.com>
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Message-ID:
<7b5b7c3b0901211414l102d0980l6a601c20af3d7279 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

By your logic, we should have Amber Alert signs everywhere. In fact, we
should just chop down every tree and replace them with Amber Alert signs!

I say we keep public highways public and keep private advertising off our
public roads. I don't need to be advertised to on my commute every day.
Our city doesn't need the blight brought by these billboards. Our earth
doesn't need the increased carbon emissions.

Our goal should be to remove every last billboard in Durham County, not
remove the ban on digital billboards.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM, RW Pickle <randy at 27beverly.com> wrote:

> How many Amber or Silver alert message signs would be a bad thing? The
> State signs only offer text messages whereas the digital billboards would
> offer visual photos. I can't see where to many of these types of messages
> would be a bad thing. They are all relative to a sense of urgency in the
> matter they are broadcasting.
>
> But this brings up another issue. We're already considering private toll
> roads. Could these digital billboards be yet another revenue generator for
> them?
>
> RWP
> 27 Beverly
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> > list at durham-inc.org
> > http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> >
>
>
> ====================================================================
> This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
> entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
> dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify
> me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail (pickle at patriot.net)
> immediately.
> =====================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090121/732eb7cf/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:04:36 -0500
From: "Tom Miller" <tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions
To: "'Mike - Hotmail'" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>, <TheOcean1 at aol.com>,
<inc-list at rtpnet.org>
Message-ID:
<20090122010442.ITFY28583.cdptpa-omta05.mail.rr.com at D9FXKZ71>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

As far as I am concerned, no. The city cannot enforce an ordinance that
presumes to regulate the content of advertising speech. If Fairway wants to
make donations, that's great. It's their choice. But they shouldn't be
allowed to buy special treatment under the zoning code with donations to
worthy causes. I told the Eno River Association the same thing years ago
when it supported a terrible zone change in return for a developer's promise
to donate a few acres of bottom land to the Eno State Park. If we go for
this billboard thing we are essentially saying those with something to trade
get breaks under the code. Those who don't, like ordinary homeowners, get
nothing.

Is INC for neighborhoods anymore? I wonder.

Tom Miller

_____ 

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mike - Hotmail
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12:56 PM
To: TheOcean1 at aol.com; inc-list at rtpnet.org
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions

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
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=htt
p://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=Dec
emailfooterNO62> yours in just 2 easy steps!

_____ 

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090121/fe297597/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

End of INC-list Digest, Vol 49, Issue 57
****************************************

--
rkitchin at aol.com
Rosemarie Kitchin
President
Kitchin's Ink, LTD
A deliberately low-profile
marketing services company
headquartered in Durham, NC
6702 Glen Forest Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27517-8647

919.768.0749 home/office
919.724.3723 mobile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090121/20cd7e19/attachment-0001.htm>