THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 19, 1995 TAG: 9502170212
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: Medium: 71 lines
If there's one thing citizens detest, it's being treated like children by the people they elected to act in their best interests, the notion that we know better than you what's best for you.
Last November's election results reflected that, and many of the people who had acted like wise guardians over uninformed voters are no longer in power.
You'd have thought that lesson would have been so obvious that government on all levels would have gotten it. Apparently not, as demonstrated by the Suffolk City Council's decisions on the racetrack at North Gate Industrial Park.
For this discussion, the issue is not whether one favors the racetrack or not. The issue is whether the council reflected faith in the community to decide what is best for Suffolk.
Did the majority vote in the interest of government, Suffolk citizens or both? If the answer is both, as I suspect it is, how come council members feel no compunction to explain?
For several meetings now - both before and after the racetrack's approval - citizens of Suffolk and Chesapeake have appeared before council to say that the racetrack will disrupt their lives, clog nearby roads with traffic, lessen their property values and perhaps endanger them if emergency units can't get to surrounding neighborhoods.
And the best most of the speakers have gotten is a polite ``Thank you, Mr./Ms. So and So,'' then on to the next speaker or agenda item. The implied message, while it may be unintentional, is, ``Now just relax. We know more than you, so just trust us to do what's right for you.''
Indeed, the council may have good reasons to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission, whose members the council appoints, not to rezone agricultural land to industrial use as a racetrack; to ignore the warning of the police chief that the two-lane roads serving the area are inadequate to handle the expected traffic volume.
It may have had good reasons to dismiss the notion of homeowners in Suffolk and Chesapeake that their property will be less desirable because of noisy race cars or the warnings that an accident on one of the rural roads will cause life-threatening delays in a medical or fire emergency.
They may know that something very good for most of Suffolk will come out of this total package. Or they may be just hoping.
One thing for sure: the people of Jolliff Woods and others who jammed the council meeting two weeks ago and those who came again Wednesday night got no assurance to diminish their anxieties.
The usual ``thank you'' is not enough. Yes, the people of Jolliff Woods slept through much of the process leading to approval of the racetrack, but any number of Suffolk citizens were wide awake and asked some of the same questions being asked by opponents. Still, there are no public answers from council.
If there's reason to believe the police chief is bluffing about all the extra traffic, tell us. If the council has a viable emergency plan, let us in. If the citizens are all worked up over nothing, provide salving information.
But please don't just say ``thank you'' and go on as if you're guarding some secret that invalidates or diminishes all these concerns.
In the eyes of most of us, public safety, health and welfare are key responsibilities of government. Other objections to the racetrack may be peripheral, but questions regarding these municipal responsibilities are the very center of the apprehension.
That's why the concerned citizens deserve a better explanation of why the council sees the racetrack as being in Suffolk's best interest. Dismissal, albeit polite, is not assurance, which they deserve. by CNB