THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 10, 1995 TAG: 9507100028
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY FRANCIE LATOUR, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHESAPEAKE LENGTH: Long : 105 lines
Chesapeake citizens may get the chance to speak out on a dilemma that affects their daily lives and the future of their city - growth control.
On Tuesday, the City Council will decide whether to hold a special November referendum asking voters whether the city should be able to halt new growth if the schools, roads and utilities aren't in place to meet the demand created by new homes - unless developers pay for the services.
It's called ``adequate public facilities'' legislation, and only the General Assembly can give localities like Chesapeake permission to use it.
Chesapeake, the fastest-growing city in the state, has asked the state for such authority before - and has been turned down. The General Assembly also said no to its request that developers pay impact fees to fund the infrastructure that supports their subdivisions.
Developers traditionally have opposed such laws, saying they inflate housing costs and threaten to halt all growth in the city.
But Chesapeake needs these tools. According to the city's estimates, the population has jumped 59 percent - from 114,000 to 181,000 - in the past 15 years. The influx of people is putting a strain on the city's roads,sewers and schools, among other things.
As it stands now, the council has limited ammunition in its arsenal to control growth.
Since 1989, the city has used a proffer system, in which developers offer to pay up to $6,000 per unit to offset the impact of their projects on nearby roads, schools and sewer lines.
Earlier this year, the council implemented a policy that automatically denies rezoning requests to build where the roads, sewers or schools are already beyond certain fixed limits.
But neither measure applies to the 6,000 acres of undeveloped, buildable land in the city that has been zoned residential since 1969.
More than 23,000 units could be built on that land without council's approval.
Now, council members who support the referendum say they are betting on a method of communication that legislators can't afford to ignore: a citizen mandate.
``It's very clear to me, having sat on this council one year, that we do not have the tools to manage the growth that threatens to overtake us,'' said Councilman John M. de Triquet, who proposed the referendum at the council's last meeting in June.
``We are asking the citizens for advice,'' de Triquet said. ``We are asking them for direction.''
With one council member absent, an evenly split council decided to postpone a final decision on the issue until Tuesday.
Ironically, community leaders who called the idea of a referendum long overdue said it also came unexpectedly early. More than 30 civic leagues had planned months ago to pack the council chambers Tuesday and demand a referendum on growth control.
Last week, leaders from those community groups voted unanimously in a citizen rally to support the call for a citizen mandate.
``For the last two years, the City Council has put on its legislative agenda a request for adequate public facilities that will allow us to manage growth and time it,'' said Gene Waters, president of the Chesapeake Council of Civic Leagues. ``That is, council has done nothing but put it on a piece of paper. It never gets anywhere. What we are saying is, we are tired of paper games.''
City Manager James W. Rein said the reality of paying for the big projects - $125 million in bonds have been sold in the past 60 days - explains at least part of the urgency among citizens and council members.
``You can't hit home any closer than that,'' he said. ``I think it's human nature that things seem a little bit more real when they are actually happening than when you talk about them happening in the future.''
Council members who oppose a special referendum question whether the mandate will break the stalemate between the city and state legislators.
Councilman W. Joe Newman, the council's other Republican freshman, said the unexpected move goes directly against the principles of a representative republic.
``The average person in our society is not really overexcited about elections or even tuned into elections,'' Newman said in an interview last week. ``If we are expected to go back to the voters on every single issue, that's just not good government.''
But civic leaders who back the referendum say that perhaps it is time to humble their public servants.
``The point of this referendum is that elected officials can count,'' said William ``Bud'' West, president of Dock Landing Civic League in Western Branch.
One senator has pledged to support adequate public facilities legislation if the mandate is clear.
``If it got overwhelming approval, and was properly presented to citizens in a referendum, then I could support it regardless of my personal opinions about the matter,'' said Sen. Fred M. Quayle.
Del. J. Randy Forbes and Sen. Mark L. Earley did not respond to repeated phone calls on the issue.
Some civic leaders are already warning against the dangers of asking citizens for input when so much rests on the political dynamics of state legislators.
``To put adequate public facilities on a November ballot is to say `Do you favor blue skies?' '' said Ed Weidner, president of the Chesapeake Taxpayer's Association. ``There's no question that it will pass handsomely.
``The question is, what will we get for it on the other side? It makes little sense to create expectations with the full knowledge that nothing can come out of it. We're frustrated enough.''
KEYWORDS: CHESAPEAKE CITY COUNCIL REFERENDUM ZONING by CNB