THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 15, 1995 TAG: 9510140115
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 190 lines
In the past and in the present, we have heard City Council say, ``We must have the user pay for the services they receive.''
Council and city management are always looking outward for a method to obtain more funds. Reassessments, increased fees, new fees, etc. are their modus operandi to take more from Joe Citizen. It is time management started looking inward.
One area council should study is Suffolk Municipal Airport. When bus service was no longer cost-effective, rates were increased, routes eliminated and drivers placed on part-time status. Patrons of the bus service were incon-venienced.
The city is in the process of building 10 additional T-hangars at the airport, 10 more scheduled next year. Cost per hangar is about $17,000, not including debt service. Rental fees of $115 per month, which includes utilities, plus personal property tax of $1 per year per plane, will not cover the cost of the hangars and their depreciation.
Most of the planes parked at the airport are owned by non-residents. This tax break has not resulted in more planes at the airport.
Suffolk's hangar rate is about 56 percent below that of our neighboring airports: Suffolk, $115 per month versus Norfolk, $231; Chesapeake, $175; Hampton Roads, $155. In addition, they pay the standard personal property tax, which is considerably higher than Suffolk's $1 per year.
Some hangars at Suffolk's airport house inoperative aircraft, many use automotive fuel and many owners purchase their fuel elsewhere.
It behooves council to conduct a study of operations at the airport. This study should include both written and verbal agreements if we are to realize the full potential of this asset.
We have seen that the airport's industrial park is only on paper and will never be developed. This was reiterated in a 1994 news article, in which an official stated they were not interested in having a business at this location.
The airport has the capability of supporting itself, so run it like a business. There is no reason why taxpayers of Suffolk should subsidize this airport with their personal property taxes.
There are other areas that need to be studied, such as utilization of city vehicles, parks and recreation, consultants versus high-salaried city employees, etc. It is time to look inside the operations of the city and stop thinking there are no savings to be made in these areas.
Talmadge C. Jones
Harbor Road
Suffolk Appreciate the police and protection they offer
In answer to Mr. Dale's letter, published Sept. 28: What is he doing that he doesn't want so many police around?
A complaint I hear from citizens, City Council businesses and even Chief Jackson is that Suffolk does not have enough police. Now we have someone complaining we have too many in this area. Just say ``thank you'' and enjoy the extra protection because, before long, they will have to move to another area. Then we will probably hear ``you never can find one when you need one.''
Anne M. Epps
Fairfield Avenue
Suffolk Personal, family safety reasons for weapon
Staff writer Terri Williams (The Virginian-Pilot, Oct. 7) reported the allegation of Paul C. Gillis, Suffolk-Nansemond NAACP president, that I was bringing a concealed weapon to City Council meetings ``to protect myself'' from him. What a joke.
Perhaps the real question is, ``Why should I have to protect myself from Mr. Gillis?'' In my opinion, the only danger Mr. Gillis presents is to his own well being in that he may someday choke on the foot he continually inserts into his mouth!
In today's society, we have certain individuals whose belief in their own self-importance and inflated egos prevent them form being able to distinguish the difference between fact and fiction.
We also have news media so intent on making deadlines or getting a scoop that not enough time is spent on research and reporting the facts. The penchant for printing allegations or quotes by informed sources or officials who wish to remain anonymous overshadow the quest for truth and fairness. I believe a professional journalist would be interested in finding out the real agenda of an individual who constantly makes allegations about others.
Had Ms. Williams done her homework instead of taking things at face value, she would have found that I have had a concealed weapons permit for about 15 years, long before I was elected to City Council. Ms. Williams failed to mention that the Virginia General Assembly passed, and Gov. George Allen signed into law, a bill that allows any law-abiding citizen who is not a convicted felon or mentally incompetent the right to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon. This same law also applies to Mr. Gillis as well as Ms. Williams. She also failed to mention other former or present council members who had and may still have a concealed weapons permit.
For those wishing to know my reasons for having a permit and carrying a concealed weapon, besides being legally entitled to, I submit the following: I have participated in two undercover police operations, one of which lasted for approximately one year and involved three police departments and the placement of an undercover officer in my place of business.
The second involved the police department and an officer of a federal agency who also operated from my business. For obvious reasons, their identities shall remain undisclosed. Some of those arrested were convicted and sent to prison. A great deal of stolen property was recovered and returned to the citizens of this and other cities.
My car has been vandalized in my front yard. My wife and I have received obscene and threatening calls. One of our night delivery drivers was the victim of an attempted strong arm robbery and was shot at. I frequently return to my place of business late at night, often after council meetings.
Most, if not all, of the above is public information and readily available to anyone willing to do a little research. Perhaps I am wrong in assuming that is what any good reporter would do prior to submitting a story for publication.
My safety and that of my family come before anything else! I will, as I'm sure you would, do everything humanly and legally possible to ensure their welfare and mine.
Richard R. Harris
Councilman, Nansemond Borough
Suffolk Great care, in Suffolk
I would like to let everyone know how pleased I was with the care I received during my recent stay at Obici Hospital.
For about 10 weeks, I was in I.C.U. and then on the second and third floors. Each of the doctors and nurses treated me with the best possible care I could imagine. I'm convinced that I could not have received better care anywhere else in Hampton Roads.
They went out of their way to meet my every need. Even in all the adversity of my illness, I will always have good memories of my experience at Obici.
Hopefully, I won't have to go back anytime soon. However, if so, it will be with the confidence that my care will be provided by the best trained and most caring staff available. I am very thankful to all of the nurses and doctors for a second chance of life. God bless each and every one.
Rick Andrews
Kilby Shores Drive
Suffolk No wonder Barlow would hide his record
It's no surprise to me that Del. Bill Barlow is trying to cover up his lousy record on protecting Virginians from violent crime. What is saddening is that he wasn't man enough to confront Republican candidate Debra Quesinberry directly on the issue.
I don't know if Barlow lied to Southampton Democrat Party Chairman Richard Railey Jr. about his lousy record or if Railey is helping Barlow with the coverup by writing untruths in letters to the editor (The Sun, Sept. 10), but I do know that Barlow has voted against us and for the criminals on several occasions.
Railey is flat-out wrong when he says Barlow voted ``Yea'' on HB 382 in 1992. (The bill gave drug dealers using a gun a mandatory two-year minimum sentence.) Barlow voted against this measure twice on the same day. First, he voted to ``refer'' the bill back to a committee that had finished meeting for the year. (Democrats like Barlow often use this trick to cover their liberal tracks.) Then, when that vote failed, Barlow was one of only 27 delegates to vote against this tough-on-crime measure. Debra Quesinberry would have voted for the bill.
On House bills, 1317 and 1318 (both 1994) Barlow used one of the Democrats' favorite gimmicks for misleading the voters - gut the bill, then vote for it on final passage.
Barlow's Democrat buddies in the House gutted HB 1317 (requiring increased mandatory minimum sentences for persons using a gun in the commission of a violent crime). When Barlow had a chance to actually vote for tough mandatory minimum sentences, he voted ``no.''
In the case of HB 1318 (tougher mandatory minimum sentences for repeat violent offenders), Barlow and his liberal Democrat colleagues used a parliamentary gimmick to require that the bill not go into effect until the state had enough money on hand to cover the maximum estimated prison costs of the bill all the way until 2004. This little trick had the effect of emasculating the legislation. When the Senate sent an amendment to the House, calling for tough mandatory sentences to take effect immediately, Bill Barlow voted ``no.''
By the way, Bill Barlow knew that he was voting against us and with the criminals on these two votes. On the morning of the vote, Gov. George Allen sent Barlow and the other delegates a memo stating, ``to defeat or defer action on House Bills 1317 and 1318 will be viewed by Virginians not as evidence of fiscal responsibility but as an excuse for refusing to act decisively to meet the violent criminal threat.''
Allen also said that the Democrats, by voting the way Barlow did, would ``tell Virginians that their elected leaders still don't get it, that they are not ready to take strong action that is needed to protect our people from the violent, gun-wielding career criminals who are roaming our streets.''
Allen couldn't be more correct. When it comes to protecting our citizens from the scourge of violent crime, Bill Barlow and his buddy, Richard Railey Jr., just don't get it.
Fortunately, the people of the 64th House District can vote this year for someone who does understand the need to get tough on crime - Debra Quesinberry. Not only will Debra be tough on crime, she will never try to mislead, cover up or lie about her voting record once she goes to the House of Delegates.
David S. Johnson
Executive Director
Republican Party of Virginia by CNB