THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 5, 1995 TAG: 9511040133
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 55 lines
There are those who would like to see a question on the ballot about whether they enjoy drinking salty water or whether they think city officials are doing a good job providing public facilities. Their answer to either of these questions would be ``No!'' Maybe even ``Heck, no!''
But those questions won't be on the ballot, however much we may wish they were.
The question before voters Tuesday is very specific and limited in scope. It presents citizens with no opportunity to comment on the quality of Chesapeake's public services or on the past performance of its leaders, political or administrative.
This has already been decided: Improvements costing $72.5 million are going to be made to the city's water and sewer systems. Federal authorities have given the city until the summer of 1998 to comply with stricter drinking water standards mandated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Neither the city nor the voters had any real say in the matter.
Happily, the improvements mandated by the federal law are also expected to rectify the recurring problem with sodium and chlorides that make water from the Northwest River Treatment Plant virtually undrinkable at times. But even if that were not so, most of the $72.5 million would have been spent anyway.
The only question remaining, then, is how to finance such a massive outlay of cash? There are two choices: one expensive and one even more expensive.
If the work is financed through general obligation bonds, which require the voters' approval, the city can save about $6 million interest over the life of the bonds.
The city could issue a different kind of bonds without seeking the voters' approval and make up the difference by raising utility rates again. And that's exactly what will happen should Tuesday's vote go the wrong way.
So the question on Tuesday's ballot, in so many words, boils down to this:
Are you in favor of saving yourself 6 million bucks?
It's a no-brainer.
It is devoutly to be wished that citizens might be afforded the opportunity to make substantive decisions about the affairs of their city, tough decisions where there are valid arguments on both sides and where the wisdom of the people can be of real value.
The question on the ballot Tuesday is not one of those questions. There's only one answer to it, and that answer is ``Yes.'' by CNB