[Durham INC] roadside solicitation

Fri Mar 18 13:16:02 EDT 2011

Hhhmmm. I agree that those two are quite different, Julie.

Which one would apply if the City of Durham issues Permits to those who  
wish to solicit?
And in addition to the license, require them to wear vests, and establish  
other rules like not being allowed to walk more than a certain distance away 
 from the milk crate used as a chair.

It would seem to me that "we" {as in the City of Durham} are doing more  
than just ignoring the practice, we are actively engaged in permitting it.

It's NOT legal in the County, but almost all of the examples are inside the 
 City limits, where it IS legal.
I believe we operate that way because many in our caring  community think 
we are helping these individuals when we pass them a dollar. 

Education is the key to any change, and that will require the citizens to  
listen to the experts, which are the non-profits who deal with these 
individuals  on a daily basis.

Bill  Anderson

In a message dated 3/18/2011 11:13:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
freespirit0623 at earthlink.net writes:

The  attachment came through as a .dat file, which I can’t  open. 
I am  interested to hear the answer to this question posed by Randy:   why  
would anyone let these folks continue to do something like this?  Including 
 whether anyone is actually letting them do it, or is not stopping them, 
which  is different.  For you to “let” someone do something, you need to  
actively give permission. To not stop them, you just need to ignore the  
practice. 

Julie  Omohundro 
Durham, North  Carolina 
_freespirit0623 at earthlink.net_ (mailto:freespirit0623 at earthlink.net) 

From:  inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On 
Behalf  Of TheOcean1 at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:46  AM
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: [Durham INC]  roadside solicitation

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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:list at durham-inc.org) 
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20110318/303fb154/attachment.html>