Panhandling ban, corporate welfare, development, and light pollution

The County Commissioners made several far-reaching decisions Monday evening.  I missed the decision about the Durham Library meeting room fees. 

 

Panhandling:

 

A ban on panhandling on roads or to drivers was approved 4 to 1, with only Michael Page dissenting, saying that proponents need to educate themselves about panhandlers.  Commissioner Cheek, who is pushing for the ban, seemed irritated in his closing comments, which I heard on channel 8, and asked if opponents were willing to wait for more people to die panhandling before prohibiting it.  The rule has to be approved one more time, January 28th, to go into effect July 1st.  As expected. there are now rumblings that the City will make its current rule, requiring a $20 dollar permit for panhandling, more prohibitive.  This is being done in the name of safety, but it deprives homeless or supposedly homeless people (and newspaper vendors) of income (leading to crime?), and homeless panhandlers will only be referred to sources of help, or arrested after repeat offenses. 

 

Panhandling is mainly a City problem and from what I have seen it is very much more rare here than in 'downtown' Chapel Hill and at UNC.  I feel bad for people who have to panhandle, but it is an annoyance, and in Chapel Hill most people I have met use variants of the same story about needing money after getting stuck there, so I don't believe them.  I have often seen people on road medians (in the City, though usually in the outskirts) and I have heard that people will walk into the middle of highways.  I think it was Commissioner Reckhow who spoke at the meeting about a panhandler on 15-501 who walked between parked cars and then was standing in the road after the light was green, but when I see them they have always been on the median, and they can be ignored if one does not want to contribute.  The ban also would prohibit roadside newspaper sales and I assume lemonade stands and selling items at roadside vigils.    

 

I think the design of several roads in Durham is much more dangerous than panhandling.  It seems to me that if there are people standing in roads, that could be banned while allowing soliciting on the sidewalk.  At what distance from a road is panhandling legal?  If distracting drivers is a real issue, will they try to ban protests or holding a sign for a business or charity car wash?  I find that much more distracting than panhandling. 

 

Economic Incentives:

 

Businesses in the County are now eligible for incentives equal to 2.25% of their capital investment and $1000-2000 dollars per job created.  A company creating 200-500 jobs can receive $1000 per position, 501-1000 jobs bring in $1500 per position, and $2000 for more than 1000 jobs.  I can see the logic in doing this, but does it work?  There have been too many cases where a business gets incentives and soon after relocates or cuts jobs, and if a company is moving into Durham because of its positive characteristics, it does not need a bribe.  I wonder who will decide what companies get bribes and how much.  Unless this policy is very restricted, it looks to me like more transfer of tax money to the rich and corporate welfare.

 

Development:

 

A proposed residential development on Doc Nichols Rd., off of Leesville Rd, near Highway 98, was approved.  It will have 369 houses and 130 townhouses, and is the first phase of a planned 422-acre development with 1200 houses.

 

Street lights every 100 feet - is it beneficial or a nuisance?  

 

Permit me to rant on one very local Durham issue.  Again in the name of safety, unwanted, night-robbing street lights are being added in front of where I live, to bring the distance between lights from 200 feet to the current 100-foot interval code.  The new light is less than 100 feet from the closest old one.  This is happening because one person or a small group somewhere else in the community complained.  I only hope they use well-shielded lights.  I don't think they will upgrade the light fixtures on old poles simultaneously.  Meanwhile, one light nearby burned out and Duke Power fixed it after being informed, yet the next light down has been on 24 hours a day for months and I'm told they have been informed and they could have seen it while fixing the other light, yet it still it is still there wasting energy and therefore making a small contribution to climate change.  Well-lit roads can be safer, and encourage faster speeds, but there is a cost and lights can increase crime.  I care about light pollution that robs us of the stars and impacts wildlife (think of all those insects attracted to lights and eaten by bats).  A few years ago a light was put in at another spot, to deter crime, and destroyed a good meteor viewing spot, though technically it was closed at night.  I live on a side road, and speed bumps are a more necessary improvement. 

 

There is also talk of putting cameras at the entrances to the development to catch thieves.  Crime is not very common or serious where I live.