[Durham INC] Stick with the status quo and that's what you have to live w...

[TheOcean1 at aol.com]

Mike
 
I took some of that same heat while I tried to keep the microphone open  
while the discussions were ongoing.
I still disagree with those who felt that we shouldn't listen to the  
billboard industry, claiming we should reject them before they opened their  
mouths.
 
These were mostly folks I respect, and had never seen them so close minded  
before. So I asked them why.
 
Many felt that discussions were expensive, usually involving lawyers. But  
the most logical argument I heard was that any promises both you and I saw 
as  great benefits to Durham, were impossible to incorporate into the laws 
that  would then cover these billboards. The company could make promises, but 
there  was no legal means of making them keep their promises.
 
I view the company as a decent community minded firm, as I have said in  
past posts, but the consequences of changing this law will follow us 50-100+  
years into the future. While I think the company would keep it's word in the 
 short run, there's no telling how long that will last. New management 
could take  over one day and kick everyone out of the pool who isn't paying.
 
So in walking away from that portion of the deal (the donating of ad space  
to nonprofits) was really walking away from an unknown, and unstable, and 
most  likely short term benefit. But I still gave weight to other benefits 
that were  concrete and real.
 
One was that Durham needs the business that these can generate. Hungry  
travelers on I-85 will have to stop somewhere, and the cities on either side of 
 us will be flashing pictures of juicy burgers at them. I have little doubt 
that  the "city of foodies" won't attract as many of those hungry people, 
even if our  food is better. We need that business, and the restaurant owners 
among us  probably had a harder time saying no than the rest of us. Same 
goes for Hotels,  and all the other businesses that feed off customers that 
travel through. 
 
It's a trade off, we all need money, but we're not willing to put up an oil 
 rig in our front yard to get it, it would just be too ugly.
 
The next hardest one for me to walk away from was the Silver & Amber  
Alert, and other crime fighting possibilities. I can imagine all sorts of uses,  
if, and a big if here, if the company would maintain a deal with our Police 
and  Emergency Communications.
 
To your concern for the "fugly" older style billboards that are being  
poorly maintained, look at those through my eyes.... they are beautiful!   The 
reason is legal talk that I hate to try to relay, but as I understand  
"Nonconforming" use.... it means that if any of those old billboards require  more 
than 25% of their value repairs during any calendar year, they are totaled  
(have seen the end of their useful lifetime) and they must be taken down 
and NOT  replaced. So eventually, we'll be seeing the woods and fields and 
natural stuff  as we drive down the road. It might take 50 years, but imagine 
how different  Durham will look to those driving through if our roadways are 
almost void of  advertising. You might be wanting to pull off the highway 
and visit this quaint  city.
 
That 25% repair per year is also what will allow some billboards to remain  
a long time, perhaps until a tornado rips through and does more than 25% 
damage  to them.
Some of the billboard companies replace one of the four wooden poles more  
often than needed, just to make sure they never rot, doing that on a 
rotation  would conceivably produce a sign that is only seven years old on it's 
oldest  part, and might last forever. So I like the ones that are in disrepair, 
because  there will be a view of the woods there sooner. Not that I'm 
against  advertising, I've used billboards myself to promote nonprofits, but I'd 
rather  see trees.
 
You're not alone in stating those benefits, I've stated them before, too.  
And I'm still in 100% agreement that this issue is worth an open dialogue,  
where we look at both the negatives AND the positives. But I also still 
think  that dialogue has already occurred. 
 
Bill  Anderson


In a message dated 3/2/2010 7:08:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mwshiflett at hotmail.com writes:

I don't  believe I've ever said that I have taken a unanimous decision 'for 
 
electronic billboards'.   What I've posted were what some  (including 
myself) 
feel are positives.

There are also many  negatives.

The ordinance, as it currently stands, chains us to the  possibility of 
many 
of the same blighted old billboards in and around our  neighborhoods, 
churches, recreational areas and schools to remain (quite  possibly for 
decades more) in place.

I've attempted to get people  to find a way to remove them by mitigating 
the 
negatives, that so many  neighborhood groups and associations seen as 
reasons 
to support the status  quo.

Over the past several months there's been discussions (mostly  against 
them). 
All I have said is that there are some advantages to them  that have been 
left out of those postings.  The Times article  mentions a few of them, 
however.

All I have advocated for is a  balanced debate.

For this, I have received many emails.  Some  friendly and understanding, 
others accusatory and degrading.

I  don't appreciate having words substituted for what I posted.

I have not  mislead people in this effort.  I only asked them to consider 
each  side of the issue.

As someone not running for office,  I have not  been lobbied or 
paid/received 
ANYTHING from the billboard industry or any  of their employees.  I 
certainly 
didn't appreciate the innuendo that  I had.

But I have seen how many non-profits and neighborhood volunteer  groups 
have 
struggled thru financially tough times recently.   I  had hoped that there 
was a compromise that could be worked out the might  benefit them and, as 
an 
added benefit, bring attention to some of the more  interesting 
happenings/events in Durham to those 'just driving  thru'.

Some have seen that there was a good argument for Public  Announcements 
using 
electronic billboards as emergency alert mechanisms,  but not as many who 
see 
these as added distractions.   I  understand this but don't agree that 
Amber 
and Silver Alerts can't be  improved upon.

It'd been helpful if someone could have incorporated  these into the mix, 
besides me along the way.

Finally, I appreciate  the ground swell of support for keeping things the 
way 
they  are.   I was just hoping that we could get more out of  it.


mike

"It is better to debate a question without settling  it than to settle a 
question without debating it."
--Jeseph  Joubert




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John  Schelp" <bwatu at yahoo.com>
To: <inc-list at DurhamINC.org>
Sent:  Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:40 PM
Subject: [Durham INC] List of neighborhoods  supporting Durham's 
successfulbillboard ban; Last chance to send  email...


> folks,
>
> Several neighborhood and  community associations support Durham's current 
> ban on billboards.  Support is strong across all segments of the 
community.
>
> (See  list of supporting neighborhoods below; along with DCVB poll 
>  results.)
>
> Happily, other neighborhood boards are meeting to  vote to join in 
support 
> of the current billboard ban. Please let us  know if we need to add your 
> neighborhood group to the  list.
>
> More than 175 emails of support have been sent to  officials over the 
past 
> four days! (One has come in for electronic  billboards.) Many many thanks 
> to one and all.
>
> If you  haven't already, kindly send a short, positive note asking 
> officials:  "please do not tinker with our successful sign ordinance."
>
>  Send email tonight/early tomorrow to Council at DurhamNC.Gov, 
>  commissioners at durhamcountync.gov,  DurhamPlanningCommission at durhamnc.gov
>
> with much  appreciation,
> John
>
> ****
>
> Working list  of supporting neighborhoods
>
> * Burch Avenue
>
> *  Duke Park
>
> * Lakewood Park
>
> * Long  Meadow
>
> * Morehead Hill
>
> * New East  Durham
>
> * Northgate Park
>
> * Old  Farm
>
> * Old West Durham
>
> * Trinity  Heights
>
> * Trinity Park
>
> *  Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
>
> * Uplift East Durham
>
> *  Walltown
>
> * Watts-Hospital Hillandale
>
> * West  End
>
> * InterNeighborhood Council
>
>  ****
>
> Poll: Residents support current billboard  ordinance
> Herald-Sun, 3 October 2009
>
> A poll  commissioned by the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau finds 
>  overwhelming support for the billboard ordinance that now  exists.
>
> Support for the existing ordinance was nearly 9-to-1  overall, with the 
> ratio of strongly agree to strongly disagree at  8.4-to-1. In all, 72 
> percent of residents supported the existing  ordinance, 20 percent were 
> undecided and 8 percent did not support  the current ordinance.
>
> In recent months, Fairway Outdoor  Advertising has lobbied the city to 
> loosen its billboard  restrictions, in part to allow electronic 
billboards.
>
> [See  letters from the community supporting Durham's current billboard 
ban 
>  here... http://supportdurhambillboardban.com/]
>
> Reyn Bowman,  president and CEO of the Durham Convention and Visitors 
> Bureau, said  he was surprised by the results. Forty percent of the 
> population, he  noted, did not even live here when the ordinance was 
>  passed.
>
> Newcomers who have lived here two years or fewer  supported the ordinance 
> by a ratio of 4.5-to-1 while those here three  to five years were 9-to-1 
in 
> favor, and those here six to 10 years in  favor by 20-to-1.
>
> Residents of 11 to 20 years supported the  ordinance by 14-to-1 and those 
> living in Durham more than 21 years  showed support by a margin of 8-to-1.
>
> The general manager with  Fairway Outdoor Advertising, which has been a 
> proponent of changing  the ordinance, was on vacation and unavailable for 
> comment, according  to a company employee.
>
> Another interesting finding of the  poll, Bowman said, is that there was 
no 
> correlation between  respondents' pride in Durham and their position on 
the 
> billboard  ordinance.
>
> Residents supported the existing ordinance  regardless of their level of 
> pride in or image of  Durham.
>
> Even those undecided about either supported the  existing ordinance.
>
> Support for the existing ordinance was  consistent across gender with 
males 
> and females, 72.4 percent and  71.4 percent, in favor respectively.
>
> Blacks supported the  existing ordinance 11-to1, whites by 10-to-1, 
Asians 
> by 4-to-1, and  Hispanics by 5.5-to-1.
>
> The poll was taken in August after  several months of discussion about a 
> possible proposal to change the  ordinance to permit moving some 
billboards 
> and upgrading them to  digital.
>
> ****
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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