[Durham INC] roadside solicitation

Thu Mar 17 11:46:01 EDT 2011

Randy,  

Of course INC has taken on this issue, and the proof is attached.

That brochure is the result of over a year's worth of bouncing it between  
all the organizations that are listed as it's supporters. Basically it's a  
product of INC & the three main charities that address the problem of  
homelessness. (Although it was pointed out that many of the panhandlers are NOT  
homeless)

The conclusion, in a nutshell, was that dollars given to these individual  
do more harm than good, and that Durham is a very generous community that  
should make their contributions in cash {and time} to the organizations  that 
provide services, rather than directly to panhandlers. Giving food is  
encouraged, just not cash.

As to laws, the vests will do little to protect the individuals while you  
run them over, but we have laws on our books that would cause 95% of these 
folks  to get a citation.
It might seem cruel, but if they get citations instead of dollars, they  
will seek the help they really need instead of being out there tomorrow, and 
the  next day. It's no quality of life, nor a path to one. What I learned 
during  that couple years it took to produce that brochure, was that our 
contributions  were what kept those guys glued to those intersections.

The law states that they may not walk more than 15 feet or something, from  
their "litter". "Litter" is defined as (and I'm doing this from memory) 
things  like the bucket or milk carton they were sitting on, or their signs 
which they  store in the bushes.

Bill  Anderson

In a message dated 3/17/2011 12:07:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
randy at 27beverly.com writes:

Does  anyone have an idea why Durham City has yet to adopt an ordinance
banning  roadside solicitation? The County did this more than a year ago.

I am  wondering because their seems to be more and more of these folks and
I  almost ran over one yesterday. Because he was in the median, I guess  he
thought he had the right of way even though I had a green light and  his
crosswalk was telling him not to cross (it was orange). He got pissed  at
me and yelled something as I turned in front of him as he was  crossing,
but I had the green light and he had a don't cross sign. It's  time our
City dealt with this issue in a manner that would make our streets  safer.
Not just for the folks who drive on them, but for the folks who  stand out
there as traffic whizzes by. If you believed the Ministers,  Substance
Abuse Councilors, Psychiatrists and others that spoke before the  County
Commissioners the night they dealt with this, why would anyone let  these
folks continue to do something like this? It's the folks in the  traffic
behind the accident just waiting for the place to happen that will  be the
victims here.

I am about ready to start a petition drive to  get the necessary signatures
to put it on the ballot and let the voters of  Durham decide if our City
Council doesn't have the desire to deal with it.  If you talk about this to
the folks around you, you'll see that getting  these folks off the roads is
a positive thought and very few would say it  was not a positive thing.

Is the $25 fee really such a great benefit to  our tax base that innocent
folks (who may be mentally ill or on substances)  may die because of our
speeding traffic and crowded streets? Not to mention  the innocent folks
who might be injured avoiding this accident when someone  wanted to stop
and give them a $1.00. Is that all any of this dangerous  behavior is
really worth to the folks who make the rules?  In the  dark; with their
dogs; how bad does it have to get before we put a stop to  it? Does someone
have to die first?

I don't believe INC has ever  dealt with the issue and taken a position.
Perhaps with this email the ball  will get rolling...

Randy Pickle
27  Beverly

_______________________________________________
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://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110317/4fed6f6a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PanHandleBro
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 758735 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110317/4fed6f6a/attachment-0001.obj>