[Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions

Thu Jan 22 10:47:50 EST 2009

It seems that several people on this email thread missed the December
meeting where the billboard industry presented their proposal to INC.  Tom's
presentation is giving the topic equal time.  The same people who keep
saying we should let the billboard industry present to us are now suggesting
that the opposing side should not have equal time.  I can almost
unequivocally state that Tom knows much, much more about this matter than
anyone else who has been sending emails.

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM, <TheOcean1 at aol.com> wrote:

>   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
>
> *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
>
>
> *   *
>
> ------------------------------
> *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
>
>

-- 
--Joshua
allen.joshua at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090122/e4477a79/attachment-0001.htm>