[Durham INC] INC losing it's middle name?
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Thu Jan 22 12:10:16 EST 2009
I feel the need to support Tom wrt his concerns about the INC's mission. Long before his email, I was discouraged when several people told (or emailed) me that 'it looks like the INC is losing their middle name.' This statement nearly took on the appearance of a slogan. In fact, several parties outside the INC discouraged me from bringing forth the Resolution for
Environmental Protection (now known as the REAP) for this same reason.
Fortunately, I did not heed their advice.
At any rate, Tom is certainly not the first to raise this concern wrt the INC, but he may be the first to raise it publicly, and doing so can only benefit INC in the long run. (Incidentally, I heard the same about the PA last year, that they were becoming too
political -- and it seems they have heard the critics and are working
to better their organization.)
I don't want to dwell on this (beyond this email), but the situation with INC presentations regarding Billboards is seeming to parallel the one surrounding the resolution for environmental protections in the UDO (last year).
In the case of the environmental protections resolution, both 'sides' were given time to present their concerns at the first INC meeting on the matter (10 minutes, with ensuing discussion). As it turned out, the side proposing environmental protections (i.e. me) felt the need to present more detailed information than the other side (i.e. Craigie). No insult intended, that's just how it went. There was much ensuing discussion by the INC on the topic, but this should not have been considered as time for one side or the other.
It appears, however, that this INC discussion was seen as time for the pro-resolution side, for at the next INC meeting, the other side was given another chance --Frank Thomas (from the National Homeowners Association) was given a prominent slot on the INC agenda. Again, INC questions and discussion ensued, and because it was critical of Mr. Thomas's stance/letter, it appears it was considered as time alotted to the pro-resolution side.
Before this meeting (at which Frank Thomas spoke), we requested time for other, more objective people to speak on the issue -- someone from stormwater and erosion control, Water Quality, DOST, etc. -- and our request was not granted. Finally, when Cathy Abernathy attempted to discuss the resolution (after the National Homebuilder's Association presented 'their side'), she was not allowed to do so , despite the fact that such discussion (or at least presentation) of the resolution should have been the actual business at hand. She was told that she was out of order, b/c the item was never put on the agenda, despite the fact that she had been assured that she would have such time.
Now, I'm not saying this to blast the INC board. I understand the need to keep discussion within reasonable time-lines, and to give equal treatment to both sides, particularly on passionate issues like the REAP and the Billboard legislation, in both of which it is hard to avoid conflicts of interest.
It seems to me that the INC has become so concerned about 'presenting both sides,' that they err on the side of overdoing it when it regards 'the opposing side' -- that is, the side they anticipate that most INC members will be against.
Yes, it is important to present both sides. But it is just as important to ensure that both sides get equal time and treatment. And open INC discussion on an issue should not count toward the 'alottment' of either side. If we can't discuss these issues at length, without the appearance of 'taking sides,' then our decisions lose credibility.
I just wanted to say that.
Melissa
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
--- On Thu, 1/22/09, Joshua Allen <allen.joshua at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Joshua Allen <allen.joshua at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Billboard proposal discussions
To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009, 10:47 AM
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!
_______________________________________________
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!
_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090122/89ea453c/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list