THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 26, 1995 TAG: 9511230288
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 56 lines
The second battle of Great Bridge,'' some are calling it.
But that name really doesn't fit the effort to rescue a lovely green plot at the busiest intersection in Great Bridge from the spread of commercial blight.
The patriots in the actual battle had what they needed to win. They had plenty of ammunition. They had time to pick their ground. They could see their enemy coming.
Those involved in the little skirmish over the so-called ``Green Spot'' have had none of these strategic advantages.
The ammunition in this battle is money, and they are woefully short of it. Their efforts to obtain more have been valiant but not entirely successful.
Their enemy caught them by surprise. The property in question has been vacant for years and few gave it a second thought. Few had any notion of its value until they were threatened with its loss.
And, unlike the battle of 1775, these latter-day skirmishers have been forced to fight on ground not of their own choosing, ground that places them at a decided disadvantage.
The owners of the Great Bridge property have every legal right to do what they intend to do. The property has been zoned for commercial use for decades. They don't need anybody's say-so to proceed with their plans.
Lacking legal arguments, those who want to preserve the property have been forced to make esthetic and ethical ones. The esthetic arguments appear to be all on their side, though the developers can argue that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that the penny they stand to make on their business deal is a pretty one.
The strongest arguments on behalf of preserving the property are ethical ones. Certainly a community has a moral prerogative to preserve its heritage, even, at times, to the extent of limiting rights of ownership. Banks and drugstores come and go. When a piece of a community's history is destroyed, it is destroyed forever.
Even so, should a property owner be required to subsidize the community's interest? Shouldn't he or she be fully compensated?
Apparently, neither private donors nor the City Council are prepared to pay what the property is worth to preserve it. If this is not the case, Tuesday's Council meeting will probably be their last opportunity to say so. The property owners intend to exercise their right to build something on the land. If not the bank and drugstore they want, they something even less appropriate.
If this were really the Battle of Great Bridge, the Redcoats would be well on their way to the waterfront by now. by CNB