THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, April 6, 1995 TAG: 9504050191
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 136 lines
WHY MUST HOLLAND SITE BE ONE FOR COTTON GIN?
It isn't necessary for a cotton gin to be located as close as 100 feet to homes when it could be located away from homes and still be in the Holland area.
It isn't necessary for the Matthews, who really do live 100 feet from the location, to have their home and yard trashed with dust and cotton.
It isn't necessary for the Matthews children, aged 2 and 7, to have to breathe the dust from both the cotton gin and the truck traffic. There are some elderly people who have respiratory problems who also will be affected.
At the Planning Commission meeting, (attorney) Joshua Pretlow made much of how tiny the particulates coming from the gin would be. As a matter of fact, the tiniest ones can do the most damage.
It isn't necessary for the Matthews and the other families nearby to have to risk their water supply because of the concentrated chemical residue represented by 20,000 acres of cotton fields that will be present in the gin waste pile, which the developers say they will haul off within 90 days of ginning season. That waste pile will be there for six to seven months!
It isn't necessary for the Matthews, the other families in the neighborhood or the people of Holland to have to endure the fires which are not only possible, but which our own fire marshal has said are ``likely to happen and are difficult to control and extinguish. Such fires require special fire extinguishing agents and produce large volumes of smoke and toxic gas that could affect nearby residents.''
There are many other problems with this site including traffic and their use of water. Mr. Pretlow made a point that water will not be used in the ginning process, only for bathrooms. However, he failed to mention that the waste pile has to be kept wet, water will be used to keep down dust on the gravel road that they said they will build, and the 12,000 gallons of water that they will keep stored for the fire department could easily affect our wells.
It isn't and should not be necessary for this cotton gin to be built right in the middle of 12 to 15 homes. Why do they continue to insist on putting it here when there are many more appropriate places? The same economic benefit will be realized by the city if this gin is placed away from homes!
Joan McCreary
South Quay Road
Suffolk
GIN WILL BRING NEW `SUICIDE STRIP' TO AREA
We would like to express our appreciation to the two members of the Planning Commission, who evidently had the forethought to do their homework and realize that the proposed site of the cotton gin in Holland would create another Suicide Strip.
Traffic on this highway is steadily increasing in volume and speed since the completion of the four lanes. A tractor-trailer 60 feet long coming from the gin, wishing to enter the westbound lanes, cannot do so without completely blocking the eastbound lanes.
Virginia taxpayers have spent millions of dollars to eliminate Suicide Strip. Why create another one here in ``Surprising Suffolk?''
William Porter
South Quay Road
Suffolk
SAFE DRIVING PREVAILS NO MATTER RIGHT OF WAY
I believe Rick Lentz missed the point regarding a letter from another Suffolk resident, whose pit bull puppy had been hit by a motorist.
I have been through the area of Burnetts Mill where the woman lived, and it is a nice area of young families with many children and animals. Even though we all have had back yards and tried to keep our children and animals inside those boundaries, there is always that one instance when the animal darts through an open gate, or the child is learning to ride a bike in the street.
The key issue is to practice safe driving habits no matter who has the right of the road. Even if you are driving through Burnetts Mill at 25 mph, or any residential subdivision, children sometimes do not think and may run in front of your vehicle. Caution is the watch word.
As for Mr. Lentz having hit his eighth dog since his move to Suffolk in 1987, that number seems extremely high. I agree, people should make a sincere effort to keep their animals on their own property so they are not a nuisance to their neighbors and a safety hazard to motorists. Neutering our pets would help achieve this goal. However, we all as drivers need to slow down and be watchful. It could be a child!
Chris Jarrins
Regina Court
Windsor
MOST POINTS AGAINST RACE TRACK UNFOUNDED
In recent weeks, I have been reading about the heated debate over the proposed race track on Nansemond Parkway. My husband and I live very near the site, and we are very much in favor of the race track. We attend Langley Raceway in Hampton every Saturday night, so we know firsthand the amount of noise the track will produce and the traffic it will generate.
Most of the points in the article in last Sunday's Clipper by Martha George and David Walkup of Citizens Against the Race Track were unfounded. It is obvious that these individuals have no interest in racing and have never attended a local race.
Sunday's article stated that traffic on Nansemond Parkway during rush hour is ``bumper to bumper.'' This makes it sound like there is stop-and-go traffic backed up for a couple of miles. That certainly is not the case.
The proposed site is just minutes from Interstate 664. Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that eventually the cities will widen the road to accommodate any extra traffic? I believe the citizens and cities involved could work out a solution to the traffic problem if they were willing to compromise.
The article also stated that the race track would amplify the traffic problems. However, the races will not start until 7 p.m., well after ``rush hour,'' and the patrons will not all arrive or depart at the same time.
This brings me back to my original point: These individuals know nothing about race tracks or how they operate.
There was also a reference in the article to the noise the track would create. To say the noise would be heard seven miles away is highly exaggerated; two miles is more accurate.
The track will have races only one night a weekend and an occasional Sunday afternoon. The noise the track generates will be nothing compared to the airplanes flying overhead to and from Hampton Roads Airport on Route 58. The airport noise is by far more of a nuisance because the airplanes fly at all times during the day.
If noise is going to be an issue, then you need to compare it to the noise we already experience on a day-to-day basis. You cannot honestly judge the noise level if you have never attended a local race.
The sale of alcohol was also mentioned. The article stated that, ``Although all of us who go to races don't drink excessively, some do and that is all it takes to kill people.'' What about those of us who attend races who don't drink at all? There are many more people who attend races who don't drink than there are who do drink. Again, I know because I attend them.
I would like to be able to attend a family function closer to home. I stress the word ``family'' because that is what racing is, a sport the entire family can enjoy.
Whenever I want to see a baseball game, a hockey game, a concert, etc., I have to travel 30 minutes or more. We need some sort of clean entertainment on our side of the Elizabeth and James rivers.
I would encourage the authors of Sunday's article to attend a race at Langley Raceway, so they can experience a race firsthand. Then maybe we can discuss facts instead of speculation.
L. Schiefer
Charlton Drive by CNB