[Durham INC] roadside solicitation

[RW Pickle]

I remember the spare change trifold, but that does very little to remove
these people from traffic. That is what the County did. They banned
roadside solicitation. In an informal poll across town over the last 4
months, I found overwhelming support for banning roadside solicitation in
the City as well. This is not something INC has dealt with. Frankly, the
brochure is a good feeling thing, but it does nothing to address the
problem...

Randy

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>


====================================================================
This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) or
entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please notify
me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail (pickle at patriot.net)
immediately.
=====================================================================