[Durham INC] Pls send short email by Wed (industrysprinklingaround $100

[Matthew Dudek]

Hear, hear Tom!

I'll bring up the issue at our next neighborhood meeting coming up and see if Cleveland-Holloway will take it up as a neighborhood issue too.


Matt Dudek
Cleveland-Holloway
502 Mallard Ave.
919 381 7577



On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Tom Miller wrote:

> Let me remind you all that we debated this at some length last year and adopted a resolution that is posted on our website.  I have already written to all the members of the BOCC, the city council, and the planning commission on behalf of INC.  Tomorrow, I will appear at the JCCPC meeting to support our resolution and the recommendation of the planning staff.
>  
> Mike, your own neighborhood is a target neighborhood – one to which the industry would like to be able to shift billboards no located elsewhere.
>  
> Everyone, please remember that the real issue here is that if the ordinance is changed, billboards which are now non-conforming and on borrowed time will become permanent, legal fixtures in the landscape.  I do not buy the argument that if we change the ordinance, dilapidated billboards will somehow be better.  Under the current ordinance the owners of dilapidated billboards can keep them up.  They just choose not to.  Under the new ordinance the same would be true.  They could fix them up, but many will just choose not to.
>  
> This is an industry that hates regulation of any kind.  Has repeatedly attacked zoning of any kind.  Has filed frivolous lawsuits against Durham.  Hires no one in Durham.  Sucks money out of Durham.  Would like the right to clear cut vegetation from the public right of way along NC highways.  And pays no taxes here or anywhere else in NC.
>  
> Please, once more, don’t fall for the red herring about the public service commitment.  No city or state may constitutionally require a billboard owner to devote space on privately owned signs on private property to post any particular content.  It is an infringement on free speech.  We can do it on the airwaves because these are publically owned.  Billboards are different.  If the industry wants to allow nonprofits to have time on there signs, they can do it now and that’s great, but there is no trade off in this new ordinance.
>  
> Billboards and the billboard industry are not neighborhood friendly.  INC, WHHNA, OWD, Northgate Park, Duke Park, Walltown, etc. are neighborhood organizations and I am a neighborhood man.  We are going to fight this.  Are you with us?
>  
> Tom
>  
> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On Behalf Of TheOcean1 at aol.com
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:23 PM
> To: mwshiflett at hotmail.com; bwatu at yahoo.com; inc-list at DurhamINC.org
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Pls send short email by Wed (industrysprinklingaround $100
>  
> Mike
>  
> Hate to disagree with you, so I'm glad it happens so rarely. Let me answer your last question first:
> "Do we want to pass up the opportunity to talk about them first?"
>  
> We HAVE talked about them. And Durham has already voiced it's collective desire to pass on this opportunity. We have REJECTED this medium starting over two decades ago, and continuing more recently to include the new electronic option.
>  
> Personally, I view the discussion finished a few months ago, because the PEOPLE had made their decision and at a 9 to 1 margin, to boot. We CITIZENS voiced our desires in our usual bullish manner, and all that's left is the formality of our elected officials voting (one hopes) in a manner consistent with the obvious preference of the constituents, we, the citizens who elected them.
>  
> Fortunately, Durham citizens have never found it difficult to make our opinions heard, and our elected representatives have usually displayed good hearing ability. The people spoke so LOUDLY, out of every ten of us, nine said NO!  (Trying not to flame you Mike!)
>  
> There's really no need to take this point by point, because we've already decided. Otherwise, to your suggestion .."You could learn about what's playing this weekend at the BPAC,....along with local events all on one billboard over the course of a few minutes". True, but I'd have to imagine you pulled off to the side of I-85 watching it like a drive in movie.
>  
> To your contention, "These 'new' billboards are more efficient than the old ones (less maintenance)", True again, Mike!  But aside from a minor energy savings locally, all of that benefit goes to the Georgia company proposing the law change. That Georgia company isn't trying to help Durham, it's trying to help itself, which is understandable, but their savings is no motivation to Durham citizens.
>  
> To your suggestion that these, "'alerts' that are much more meaningful than 'call 411 for more information'." Very True, and totally agree, and this one point is so strong regarding Amber and Silver Alerts, that I felt it gave good justification for this Georgia firm to make the same tired request of the people of Durham again, as they have several times over the past couple decades. Truthfully, Durham is a little tired of hearing from them, but I felt that the possibilities that this instant communication ability opened up gave that Georgia company a reasonable platform, a good reason to make their case once again. So strongly, in fact, that I tried to help build that platform, and opposed those who said we shouldn't listen to them. This point, and your next, gave me good reason to pause and authentically consider the possibility.
>  
> That, and the possibility "that includes opportunities for charities and non-profits to get advertising space that is sorely needed", were both points that made me authentically want to hear what the company had to propose and literally fight for their opportunity to speak!  But they've spoken, and we the people have reached a collective conclusion, and now I hope they are as diligent listening to us, as we were them.
>  
> We did a pretty good job focusing on the possibilities, while we ignored their attempts to tip the scales by making contributions to the campaigns of our LOCAL elected officials. Or should we believe these folks really care about who is elected in Durham? Perhaps some of our non-profits benefited from some free billboard space, but it didn't happen because the company cared about us, they had specifically asked our elected officials for the names of their favorite non-profits, then ran to those and offered them free space... perhaps to endear themselves to the elected officials.
>  
> Should we fault a company for using every legal means possible to effect their bottom line? Nope, in fact we should expect it.  Should we allow today's donation to a Durham nonprofit to decide the appearance of our highways 50 years from now? Nope. Not in the least. Should we judge a company's character or generosity, from any donations made for those reasons? Nope. So what can we look at?
> 
> As someone who has approached this company on at least two different occasions years ago, on behalf of two completely different nonprofits, looking for free billboard advertising.... and during times when the company would gain absolutely zero political benefit from providing the gift... both times Fairway Advertising said YES. In one case donating nine billboards for an extended campaign, and in both cases their donation helped Durham!  So I'm personally of the impression that Fairway is a good company. Should we say yes to every request we get from good companies? No.
>  
> Are we making a mistake not to grab this opportunity?  Maybe. But we can change the law this direction any year we wish, unfortunately, we can never reverse it. If it is Pandora's Box, and we open it, it will remain open forever. If we ever allow electronic boards, then later change our minds, we'd pay the company for the value of thousands of ads per day, running for decades. That's unimaginable money. And that could happen just because we need the land for a future purpose.
>  
> At least it's a conversation we get to have here in Durham, mostly thanks to InterNeighborhood Council taking the original stance over 20 years ago, and helping to craft our current laws. That's why we talk about this possibility, while Burlington woke up one day and there they were!  Sometimes I wish Durham could talk like a sweet little lamb, especially to a good company like Fairway. It would gently whisper, "Sorry, no thanks this time... but thank you for the help you provided our nonprofits while you made your case, and thanks for helping our best candidates win re-election, and thanks for understanding. Bye now"
>  
> But we're not the Lamb City, we're the Bull City.... so that comes out more like: "NO!  And what part of that word don't you understand!?"
>  
> I'm so much longer winded than either lambs or bulls, but I'd tell the Billboard industry in regards to it's Durham effort: "It was pretty much over weeks ago.  You're a good company, but the good people of Durham made their decision and voiced it, and we have good elected officials who are about to ratify our collective decision, in a prefect display of how a Democracy is supposed to work. You can hold out some hope, it doesn't always work here. So good luck, and see you later. We know there will be a next time, we'll see you then.
> Bill Anderson
> 
>  
> In a message dated 3/1/2010 3:58:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:
> At the risk of being flamed.....
> 
> There are some legitimate reasons for us to look at the options available
> during these billboard discussions.
> 
> The first of which is the potential of getting rid of the old dilapidated
> and 'Fugly' billboards that are in and around (or shining into) our
> neighborhoods removed rather than waiting a few hundred years for them to
> eventually be taken down by their owners (consequence of the current
> ordinance).
> 
> By allowing replacements to be positioned very carefully into locations that
> do not shine into peoples homes, places of worship, parks, schools etc (or
> within line site of them) there's a possibility to get rid of a number of
> these olds one and bring in a few new modern ones away from these sensitive
> areas.
> 
> These 'new' billboards are more efficient than the old ones (less
> maintenance) and there are provisions in the wording of the ordinance (from
> what I understand) that includes opportunities for charities and non-profits
> to get advertising space that is sorely needed in these financially strapped
> times.
> 
> As an advantage to people who like the Bulls, DPAC or other Durham
> venues.....opportunities might exist for them to provide timely and up to
> date schedules of events or special notices that would NOT be as cost
> effective for them in the past.   How good is a billboard that advertises
> the Color Purple two days after it's last presentation in Durham or a
> Championship Game at the DBAC  after it's already has been played?
> 
> You could learn about what's playing this (and every) weekend at the BPAC,
> Carolina and the Man Bites Dog Theatre along with local events all on one
> billboard over the course of a few minutes.
> 
> I see these as distinct advantages.
> 
> But let's be clear about this........Electronic Billboards are NOT FLASHING
> or blinking in their messages as some have portrayed them.  The messages
> 'switch' almost instantaneously from one message to another.   And from what
> I understand their 'illumination' is calibrated so that they are no more
> 'brighter' or blinding than what's currently in place (high intensity
> lighting vs. LED's), plus there's less of an opportunity for bleeding of
> light out into the atmosphere like you see on some of the older types of
> billboards along our highways.
> 
> While a number of people feel that these new electronic billboards are
> distractions,  I don't.
> 
> The current ordinance was enacted years before Electronic Billboards were an
> option.  It might be worth looking at every faucet of the advantages and
> disadvantages of either allowing them or limiting their locations to
> specific criteria and considering the benefits to us as a community before
> taking a position.
> 
> For instance, there are advocates for children, the handicapped and crime
> fighting groups that see potential in using electronic billboards for
> 'alerts' that are much more meaningful than 'call 411 for more information'.
> Situations where a kid is abducted or a disoriented senior lost are just two
> examples.  Emergencies or a potentially dangerous situations that electronic
> message boards will help get out the message faster (with pictures) than
> what's available now is definitely something that's a plus that is not and
> can not be duplicated any other way.
> 
> Do we want to pass up the opportunity to talk about them first?
> 
> 
> Mike Shiflett
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Schelp" <bwatu at yahoo.com>
> To: <inc-list at DurhamINC.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:02 AM
> Subject: [Durham INC] Pls send short email by Wed (industry sprinklingaround 
> $100 checks;replacing gun show billboards with PSAs for stray pets)
> 
> 
> > folks,
> >
> > Bumped into a couple of friends yesterday who said they sent emails last 
> > year and can't believe the billboard industry is back at it. They asked if 
> > they needed to send another?
> >
> > Yes! Industry is counting on citizens to get tired and disengaged. Kindly 
> > send a short, positive note asking officials to "please not tinker with 
> > our successful sign ordinance."
> >
> > You can send email (before March 3) to Council at DurhamNC.Gov, 
> > commissioners at durhamcountync.gov, DurhamPlanningCommission at durhamnc.gov
> >
> > Seeing the recent poll showing 9:1 support in all segments of the 
> > community for Durham's successful billboard ban, industry has been 
> > sprinkling $100 checks on incumbents and quickly replacing its billboards 
> > in East Durham -- for gun shows in Raleigh -- with cute PSAs for stray 
> > pets.
> >
> > --> See letter in today's Herald-Sun (below).
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 3, the Joint City-County Planning Committee is meeting 
> > to decide if we even need to start messing around with Durham's sign 
> > ordinance in the first place. Our current sign ordinance is a strong and 
> > effective measure that doesn't need to be changed to accommodate a 
> > billboard company in Georgia.
> >
> > We don't need to start messing with an ordinance that's worked so well 
> > over the years -- especially since it'll be very difficult to start 
> > changing things without inviting litigation.
> >
> > Please don't let the billboard industry overturn Durham's successful 
> > billboard ban -- to allow big, bright billboards on tall metal monopoles, 
> > blinking more than 10,000 ads/day -- on roadways near our homes, 
> > playgrounds, schools and parks.
> >
> > with many thanks,
> > John
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Letter: Keep billboard ban
> > Herald-Sun, 28 Feb 2010
> >
> > In pressuring elected officials to overturn Durham's successful ban on 
> > billboards, industry is offering free billboard ads to local non-profits 
> > (a common tactic industry uses in other communities).
> >
> > For weeks, a billboard near NC-147 and Alston Avenue advertised a gun show 
> > in Raleigh. The billboard stood less than a mile from two recent 
> > homicides, including one that was a block away.
> >
> > Just in time for elected officials to decide about overturning Durham's 
> > billboard ban, the gun show ad has suddenly been replaced by a PSA showing 
> > cute little stray dogs and cats.
> >
> > Showing excellent journalism, The Herald-Sun reported that lawyers from 
> > the K&L Gates law firm, along with others tied to the billboard industry, 
> > "gave heavily toward the end of the race" for City Council.
> >
> > Several candidates received $100 checks from different attorneys and 
> > associates at K&L Gates.
> >
> > Employees of the Georgia billboard company, trying to overturn Durham's 
> > successful billboard ban, contributed $550 to the incumbents. The 
> > company's manager in Raleigh, gave $250 to City Council incumbents. Two of 
> > his subordinates, a sales manager and an art director, wrote $100 checks 
> > to Council members. Steve Toler, a local consultant working with the 
> > billboard industry, also sent a $100 check.
> >
> > Let's not start messing with our successful sign ordinance just so a 
> > Georgia company can stick big, bright, blinking electronic billboards on 
> > our roadways -- near our homes, schools and parks.
> >
> > To see video clips of electronic billboards and letters of support from 
> > folks in the Durham community, visit supportdurhambillboardban.com
> >
> > John Schelp
> > Durham
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Letter: Support billboard ban
> > Durham News, 02 December 2009
> >
> > I support Durham's current ban on new billboards, and I'm writing to urge 
> > you to resist the billboard industry's attempt to overturn our ordinance. 
> > Please support the current ban in upcoming votes.
> >
> > The last thing we need is big, bright, blinking billboards on I-85, 147, 
> > 15-501 and 70. These would look trashy, waste energy, and might very 
> > possibly cause safety problems. Most outrageous of all, if Durham wanted 
> > to remove an electronic billboard for any reason in the future, Durham 
> > taxpayers would have to compensate the owners for lost revenues.
> >
> > When it banned new billboards in 1984, Durham made a statement about 
> > community pride and self-determination. The very small amount of money 
> > these billboards would add to our tax revenues would be vastly outweighed 
> > by the negative message they would send about our community--that we are a 
> > bunch of dumb yokels willing to give up important community values, such 
> > as aesthetics, for next to nothing.
> >
> > Mike Morris
> > Durham
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Letter: Dangerous billboards
> > Herald-Sun, 16 Nov 2009
> >
> > Allowing digital billboards can cost lives. Already, drivers speed along 
> > major corridors using cell phones, texting and even using computers. It is 
> > natural for colorful, moving lights to draw the eye. That is exactly what 
> > an advertiser wants. During this moment of inattention, a lethal crash may 
> > occur.
> >
> > Fairway Outdoor Advertising wants more of these attractions along 
> > corridors including U.S. 15-501, I-85 and the Durham Freeway. Here, 
> > traffic ignores the speed limit, and is ripe for accidents. In addition to 
> > ads, advertisers will display public service announcements, again 
> > distracting drivers.
> >
> > As a much-much older, but used-to-be-teenaged driver, I know the dangers 
> > of distraction on high-speed or even low-speed roads. Georgia's Fairway 
> > Outdoor Advertising should not profit by cluttering and threatening our 
> > area.
> >
> > Burdette Connell
> > Durham
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Letter: Keep billboard ban for better Durham
> > Herald-Sun, 31 Dec 2009
> >
> > The day after the InterNeighborhood Council voted to support Durham's 
> > current ban on billboards, Fairway Advertising's local rep told a 
> > Herald-Sun reporter there wasn't widespread opposition to electronic 
> > billboards.
> >
> > He was wrong. In a Durham Convention & Visitor's Bureau poll, support for 
> > Durham's existing billboard ordinance was nearly 9 to 1 overall (see 
> > results at supportdurhambillboardban.com). It should come as no surprise 
> > someone in advertising is trying to sell us a bill of goods.
> >
> > Support for our successful billboard ban is widespread and strong across 
> > the community. Seeing all this support, industry is trying to pick off 
> > local nonprofits with free PSAs (a common industry tactic). Does anyone 
> > really think it's a good idea to get drivers to take their eyes off the 
> > road so they can be distracted by ads for cigarette outlets in 
> > Burlington -- and PSAs about teenage smoking?
> >
> > If local officials ever wanted to remove an electronic billboard for any 
> > reason, Durham taxpayers would have to compensate billboard companies for 
> > all future lost revenues. For a digital billboard, flashing more than 
> > 10,000 ads/day, that's a lot of money taxpayers would have to send to a 
> > company in another state.
> >
> > As we head into 2010, one certainly hopes no local official would take 
> > such an irresponsible risk with taxpayer money.
> >
> > Keep in mind that the billboard industry lawyers are the same lawyers 
> > suing the county on another matter. If industry lawyers are this sue-happy 
> > now, think what will happen once they overturn Durham's ban on billboards.
> >
> > John Schelp
> > Durham
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Letter: Tacky billboards
> > Herald-Sun, 20 Nov 2009
> >
> > My husband and I recently spent a week in Pigeon Forge, Tenn., which is 
> > highly commercialized.
> >
> > The main street through the town is lined with stores, restaurants, 
> > hotels, and entertainment venues. There is a constant stream of signs and 
> > billboards, but the things that stood out above all else were the 
> > electronic billboards, which were so bright that I felt as if my eyes had 
> > been assaulted.
> >
> > I was struck by how tacky they looked.
> >
> > I would suggest that before our county officials seriously consider 
> > approving digital signs in our area, that they take a good look at the 
> > real things and consider how garish and distracting they really are. I am 
> > enthusiastic about most new technology, but this is something we are 
> > better off without!
> >
> > Ann Rogers
> > Durham
> >
> > ****
> >
> > Letter: Keep electronic billboards out
> > Durham News (N&O), 31 Oct 2009
> >
> > Having just driven back from Watauga County on Sunday evening, 
> > specifically picturesque Blowing Rock, I witnessed one of three electronic 
> > billboards. How unsightly and distracting it was.
> >
> > There on the side of the road, in front of large gray boulders covered 
> > with moss, and surrounded by rhododendrons, was a flashing sign 
> > advertising the stores located at Boone Mall. I've always been 
> > disappointed having to look at the traditional billboards on the side of 
> > the road while driving up 321 from Boone to Blowing Rock. The electronic 
> > billboard reminded me of why I spent the weekend in Ashe County, adjacent 
> > to Watagua, an area not full of homogenous housing developments and 
> > overgrown with strip malls.
> >
> > Let's keep electronic billboards off of Durham's highways. Durham has too 
> > much charm and character to be undermined by these distractions.
> >
> > Myers Sugg
> > Durham
> >
> > ****
> >
> > --> See many more letters of support from the community here... 
> > http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/letters.html
> >
> > ****
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed