THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 10, 1994 TAG: 9406090182
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Beth Barber
DATELINE: 940610 LENGTH: Medium
Yes, seven City Council members said Tuesday. But Councilman John Moss, one of three no votes, says he'll revive the issue repeatedly in an effort to reverse that vote.
{REST} Persistence in the name of governmental frugality can be a virtue. But the revival tactic may turn out like the playing card clipped to a spoke: It can't stop the bike. It just clatters like mad.
Sentiment is with this project, not against it, on this Council and, if campaign promises are kept, the next. What happens beyond that is speculation. Harping on what successor Councils might do also ignores two factors. The city might have to reimburse the Corps if a Council reneges mid-project. And Sandbridge owners and their representatives have proved not only persuasive but creative at meeting critics' demands. Folks out to fool Mother Nature aren't going to fold for a city councilman.
In the devilish details, replenishment's opponents can find a course more constructive than clatter. A decision they can't undo they can refine.
They can work to discourage further development/investment that taxpayers will be further exhorted to protect.
They can see that the tax surcharges are high enough to sustain Sandbridge's crucial claim: that it not only pays its own way but is a net contributor to the city's kitty.
They can push for some sort of cutoff if sand and sand dollars disappear faster than anticipated. City, Sandbridge and Corps have decided the community is worth protecting. They should also decide at what point it's not.
by CNB