THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, August 11, 1995 TAG: 9508090142
SECTION: PORTSMOUTH CURRENTS PAGE: 02 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Ida Kay Jordan
LENGTH: Medium: 73 lines
Portsmouth people now have a chance to prove that citizens are as capable of building up as they are of tearing down.
By tabling action on the Twin Pines borrow pit site, City Council gave citizens time to organize and develop the Hoffler Creek wildlife refuge project.
I believe the people of Portsmouth will do it - if the city doesn't create an obstacle course.
Many smart, successful people want to save the area. The group cuts across a wide spectrum of ages, backgrounds and circumstances.
It includes young people with young children, a segment of our population seldom seen at City Hall except to protest. They are positive about this project, stating that it could make Portsmouth an exceptional place to live.
The people who have stepped up to the bat to save the refuge are not stereotypical ecologists who spend a lot of time talking about the environment but who do little hands-on work to save it. Rather these are a mixed bag of people who realize the value of this specific wildlife habitat and want to work to save it.
They have not asked the city to do anything but accept the land from the state. From the beginning, they have looked as this as a people project.
Mayor Gloria Webb recognized that Monday night when she cut short a staff member's comments that the city would look into the situation and recommend to the citizen committee.
``This is a citizen-generated issue,'' Webb said. ``They tell us, not we tell them.''
Any project that involves public land of necessity depends on cooperation with the bureaucracy. In a public-private situation, citizens must depend on city staff to jump some of the hurdles and follow-through on some technical activities.
If that were not so, Northside residents would have completed the proposed Scotts Creek project by now and the city would be reaping the benefits.
Fortunately, the wildlife refuge folks want to keep a piece of public property, not sell it. They also want to maintain it in a way that probably will not require permits from the state and federal governments, so they do not have to deal with other agencies or depend on the city to do so.
Councilman Ward Robinett has some legitimate concerns about future control and policing of the wildlife area. He does not want it to become a refuge for a different kind of wild life.
``Who's going to assure that it's not going to become another big blight on the city?'' he asked. ``Look at Churchland Park right down the street. No one wants to go there.''
It's an obvious and important question. Maybe the answer also is obvious.
Many leaders of the movement to create the nature preserve live nearby. They are not unrealistic people and they have the same questions as Robinett. They are going to build control into their plans.
The area would be fenced and closed on week days to all but students. On weekends it would be open to the public but all persons would enter and leave through the same gate, signing in and signing out.
Because under the terms of the citizen proposal, the area would be in the hands of a private foundation, it could be controlled. It would be open to everyone - BUT only on the condition that they observe the rules.
Randi Strutton, a leader in the group to save the natural habitat, told the council that citizens are ``ready to serve'' if given the chance.
``You will have strengthened the social fabric of the community by providing opportunities for citizens to work together for the great good and to reap the physical, mental and spiritual benefits associated with working to protect our natural heritage,'' Strutton said.
Council's decision to give the citizens time to act was the first step. Now council also must be sure that the bureaucracy enhances rather than impedes the citizens' work. by CNB