THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, April 14, 1995 TAG: 9504130149
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Long : 123 lines
I found your article ``Welfare at the Beach'' (Beacon, March 31) contrary to what you claimed to be the purpose of the story. The last line of the introduction states, ``What we won't offer you is any judgments about the programs or people. We'll leave that to you - and to the leaders you helped elect.''
However, rather than painting a realistic picture of ``Welfare at the Beach,'' you gave the public three stories that tugged at the heart strings of every reader. You left out the darker side of welfare. All of the abuses were unmentioned. Why not tell the entire truth?
Tell about rank bums walking into local grocery stores and buying candy bars until they have enough change from food stamps to buy alcohol. Tell a story of a man who is on welfare simply because he does not want to work.
I of course feel for the people detailed in your story. Mary Dailey is the quintessential role model of how welfare can help a family in times of need and eventually raise it back up to a more comfortable socio-economic level.
However, I feel that if you are going to write about ``Welfare at the Beach,'' you should include both sides of the story, not just a few heart-rending cases that will get readers writing to their Council members about how welfare is wonderful and should not be re-formed.
Christie A. McDaniel
Virginia Beach `Greatest flaw' in takings legislation: letting property rights supersede responsibility to the common good
I read with dismay and sadness Beth Barber's column ``The Green choir'' (Beacon, April 7). As a member of the ``choir'' on the morning in question, I found her characterization of the discussion of the ``takings'' issue as ``claptrap'' rather inaccurate. Webster's defines ``claptrap'' as ``showy, empty talk or writing intended only to get notice.'' I have found the discussion at the Green Breakfast, which she describes as an ``interesting, provocative gathering,'' to be informative and open to opposing views, as she duly noted.
The ``takings'' legislation, like a lot of the legislation it seeks to subvert, indeed has its flaws. The greatest flaw is in allowing personal property rights to supersede the responsibility of property owners to maintain their property in a fashion that does not cause harm to our society's common good.
In the case of wetlands, for example, to fill in an area may increase the likelihood that another property may be flooded in the future. Should our society compensate the landowner who has filled in his wetland rather than provide the guidelines necessary to ensure the flooding does not occur? Various people speak often about personal responsibility but appear to fall short when taking measures to ensure responsible behavior.
Perhaps Ms. Barber was not present when the loss of half of the wetlands in the lower 48 states or the continued loss of 5,000 acres per year in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay were mentioned. To think that those losses have occurred despite what many would consider excessive regulation of wetlands is indeed enlightening.
Ms. Barber appears to characterize the discussion as so polarizing as to create the image of the ``good guys, who exalt the claim to the environment of the red-cockaded woodpecker, and bad guys, who want other priorities like food, shelter, clothing and jobs for humankind in the policy-making mix.'' Individuals who attend the Green Breakfast do so out of a genuine concern for the health of our environment and to perhaps find a brief respite from what appear to be a relentless assault on ``environmentalists.''
As a pediatrician who has cared for the children of this community for over 10 years and an ``environmentalist'' with a master's degree in environmental science and policy, I wish to assure Ms. Barber that ``environmentalists'' have the same priorities of food, shelter, clothing and jobs for humankind that many non-environmentalists have. Perhaps ``environmentalists'' just believe that those necessities can be provided without leaving our children with a legacy greater than the multi-trillion-dollar debt - a polluted and perhaps irreparably damaged natural world. I know that for the future health and well-being of our children we must take the steps necessary to ensure the preservation of our environment, home of the red-cockaded woodpecker.
I hope Ms. Barber will come again to the Green Breakfast and I urge anyone else to come and get a little more educated about the air we breathe, the water we drink and the Earth we all share. I sincerely believe that you will find a group of caring citizens who love their fellow man as much as anyone does. Let us all remember the Native American proverb, ``We have not inherited the Earth from our fathers; we are borrowing it from our children.''
C. Stephen Vinson
Virginia Beach Fix tennis courts before building amphitheater
Fix tennis courts before building amphitheater
City Manager James Spore encourages increased citizen participation in local government (letter to citizens, advertisement, Beacon, April 2). He also emphasizes sustaining and shoring up existing services and programs and maintenance of existing assets.
Does Mr. Spore consider city tennis courts existing assets? The 12 tennis courts at Lynnhaven Middle School were torn up in March 1994 for resurfacing. After a problem was detected with water under the courts, city engineers recommended complete restructuring. A year has passed with nothing done. These courts were the most used courts in the city.
We are a group of 20 senior citizens who have used these 12 courts several times a week for round robins for 10 years. Now that the city has demolished them, we must go elsewhere. The local school authorities have excluded taxpayers from Cox High School, First Colonial High School and Great Neck Middle School during school season. These schools also will not allow parking on school property without a school permit.
This has forced us to go out of our home area to find courts. We have tried using the Owl Creek facility only to be denied courts there when they have other scheduled clinics and tournaments.
We do not believe the city is being totally fair with its citizens in this area. We also feel that cutting the number of usable lit courts from 12 to six is unfair because of the physical-educational-class usage at Lynnhaven school.
We have written to city officials, including the mayor, City Councilman Bill Harrison, the city manager and the Department of Parks and Recreation. We've received a variety of reasons and excuses, but still nothing has been done.
We also feel that Virginia Beach City Council should not contract for any major new construction (the amphitheater) if they claim they do not have funds to reconstruct their existing assets.
Joseph E. Smith
and 13 others
in the CRS Tennis Group
Virginia Beach by CNB