THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, July 14, 1995 TAG: 9507130192
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Short : 45 lines
Even the most outspoken opponents of adequate public facilities legislation understand that a majority of Chesapeake citizens believe that the city's chaotic growth will not be managed without it.
That was obvious Tuesday when hundreds of taxpayers came to City Hall seeking an opportunity to express opinions through a referendum.
Those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo were backed into a corner. Giving voters the opportunity to offer their advice might obligate them to take it. They chose instead to clap their hands over their ears and turn the referendum down.
As a result, city housing projects and shopping centers will continue to be built without much thought for the impact they have on roads, schools, utilities and public services. The costs of growth, both financial and psychic, will be borne by those who benefit from it least.
The same councilmen who turned a deaf ear to the citizens' request have repeatedly asked the state legislature for authority to consider adequate public facilities legislation as a growth-control tool. When the city's legislative delegation refused even to consider such a course, council members accused them of being unresponsive to the will of the people who elected them. Who will they say is unresponsive now?
Opponents of adequate public facilities legislation claim it would transfer the burden of paying for public services from the public to the private sector. But they can't say it often enough to make it true.
The citizens who are expected to pay for crowded roads, inadequate schools and overtaxed utility systems in Chesapeake are the private sector and not that portion of the private sector that profits from the city's compliant growth policies.
Attempts by this and previous councils to have any meaningful effect on the city's growth through available means have failed time and again. There is no evidence that council members have new ideas of their own to try.
That being the case, it took real nerve for them to refuse to hear the advice of others. by CNB