[Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions

Thu Jan 22 10:10:54 EST 2009

That's a disgustingly low blow Tom, especially from a past President.

It's on a par with asking loudly at a party, "That's Mr XXXXXX, I wonder if  
he molests children?"

Obviously, if a past President wonders if INC is still for neighborhoods,  
that might get others wondering, too.

And what exactly gives you cause to wonder that, Tom? What EXACTLY has INC  
done to give you doubt?
INC has done nothing, and can do NOTHING, without the consent and the  
consensus of the neighborhoods.

In the end, that consensus might be to reject what is proposed.  But  there 
is nothing proposed yet, therefor nothing to reject.
Your platform from the start has been to reject the ability to  even put a 
proposal on the table.

With no proposal in front of us, we have almost nothing to agree or  disagree 
about, but that hasn't stopped you from producing a pretty intense  campaign 
based on, of all things, "Let's not listen to them".

I thought calmer heads were supposed to prevail! But I feel like I've been  
in a fire storm just making the insane suggestion that, "No, we should listen,  
see what they have to say, THEN reject them if we wish".

We all know you fought this company 20 years ago, and don't want to hear  
from them again, but don't prevent everyone else the opportunity to try and hear  
what they are saying over your loud racket.

I see you are on the agenda for 30 minutes next week, and another 30 will  be 
devoted to setting our priorities. Frankly it's going to be a challenge doing 
 the priorities in that much time, and we already know what you are going to 
say,  "Billboards are bad, so don't listen to them".
Maybe you can say that in less than 30 minutes, since I'm not going to tell  
the neighborhoods we shouldn't listen to you at all.
I suspect you don't like the idea of equal footing, but I think we should  
all listen to both you and the billboard industry.... and then make up our  
minds.

Bill Anderson

In a message dated 1/21/2009 8:05:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
tom-miller1 at nc.rr.com writes:

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_ (mailto:TheOcean1 at aol.com)   

To: _inc-list at rtpnet.org_ (mailto: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&hmpgID=62&bcd=DecemailfooterNO
62) 

____________________________________

_______________________________________________
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

**************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=De
cemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090122/b84c1ef0/attachment-0001.htm>