THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, January 12, 1996 TAG: 9601110134
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Long : 139 lines
In May 1994, voters in Virginia Beach approved an advisory referendum for councilmanic reform. As a result, state law requires City Council to change the election system for borough representation into seven equally populated voting districts.
The law also mandates that a second advisory referendum be held in May 1996 to resolve the issue of whether the council member elected from each district be elected by only the qualified voters of that district rather than citywide.
Anyone following recent City Council meetings plainly sees that council is frustrated in trying to develop the seven equally populated voting districts. Some are even displeased or infuriated because reapportionment will change the cozy and comfortable world of the status quo. Also, most members have rejected or abandoned the principles embodied in the initiative and referendum process.
Harboring such feelings, the council approved the following question for the 1996 referendum:
``Should the City Council member elected to represent a particular borough be elected by all qualified voters throughout the city (an at-large system) rather than only by the qualified voters residing in that particular borough (a ward system)? If you wish to vote for 11 council seats vote yes! If you prefer to vote for only five of the 11 council seats vote no!''
Vice Mayor Will Sessoms and Councilman John Baum of Blackwater (population 990), drafted the question. Both men have fought election reform since its beginning. Even after the 1994 election results, they voted against sending the victorious referendum plan to the General Assembly for action.
One needn't be a chicken to smell a rotten egg. The question that won the 1994 balloting stated:
``Should the City Council request the General Assembly to amend the city's councilmanic electoral system to provide for . . . seven members to be elected only by the voters of their respective districts and three members and the mayor to be elected by and from the city at large?''
This question is unambiguous and needs only a ``yes'' or ``no'' response.
But now the Sessoms/Baum version means that 28,000 registered voters who signed petitions containing the 1994 ballot question and those who cast ``yes'' votes to win the referendum must vote ``no.'' In other words, you must vote ``no'' to say ``yes, I want change.'' Let's say the Sessoms/Baum question is a brazen attempt to rig the election.
Proponents of the existing at-large system claim that a change to single-district representation will result in abusive political power. However, this case illustrates how a powerful few under the existing at-large system can brush aside and attempt to derail the will of the majority that was expressed in a legitimate election. Reasonableness and fairness are flushed away.
Al Strazzullo
Virginia Beach
I am very disappointed and distressed to read the wording of the proposed referendum to be placed on the ballot in May.
After the previous vote on this subject, in spite of the majority approval the referendum received, we were to told that many of us didn't understand what we were voting for and that the wording of the referendum was confusing. I totally disagree with that statement, but that is past history. Now we have the opportunity to try again.
After reading the proposed wording for the new referendum, I cannot believe that it would be placed on the ballot as a fair and impartial item to be voted on. Talk about confusing! The beginning is satisfactory, but when we reach the part where we are offered the opportunity to - vote for all 11 candidates or only five - I find it hard that anyone could consider this to be fair and clear wording. Without a doubt this wording shows me that the City Council wants the situation to remain status quo.
I personally will do all I can to effect a change in May.
Marjorie A. Buono
Virginia Beach Live racing should precede OTBs
State Sen. Ken Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), and other legislators, are right on the mark when they say they want to see live horse racing in place before off-track betting parlors (OTB) open in Virginia. They understand how important live racing is to Virginia's horsemen.
Simulcast races from other states provide no opportunities for Virginia horses to run in Virginia. And only by running, and winning, will Virginia horses bring their owners and breeders any financial success. Virginians embarked on this horse racing journey to better the state's native horse industry, not to promote gambling nor to enrich out-of-state businessmen.
The problem is, that by virtue of a decision by the racing commission, Virginians are stuck with a race track licensee with such limited means that he cannot construct a track and fund a purse account without revenue from OTBs.
So now we have these frantic effort to locate and open OTBs which appear to emphasize cheapness rather than showcasing the sport of horse racing. Fortunately, Senator Stolle had the foresight to amend the law such that live racing must occur within one year of the granting of an OTB license.
Now we have the licensee proposing to satisfy the one-year requirement by staging a short ``tent meet'' at his proposed track site in New Kent County. Not only is the location wrong but so is the idea. Senator Stolle is on to their game. He sees the danger here: who will ensure live racing is not forgotten or slighted while pursuing simulcasting revenues?
Virginians need to pause and get our priorities in order so as to indeed promote, sustain and grow our native horse industry by insisting on live racing first.
James K. Hitch
Middleburg, Va. Vandals nabbed; others at large
I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest thanks for the kindness and sensitivity displayed by the First Precinct of the Virginia Beach Police Department during the recent vandalism of our home. Within minutes of the 911 call, the officers responded taking charge of the situation, which calmed me down considerably.
With the help of all the neighbors, they were able to capture the juveniles within hours of the crime. While verifying the stolen items, the detective's professionalism was extremely overwhelming, since he had been working on the case for over 24 hours. During this crisis I gained more respect and compassion for the work law enforcers have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
Please extend a hearty ``well done'' to the officers and the detective for their assistance and support during our time of crisis.
Carla Kay Keipe
Virginia Beach An open letter to a thief:
The colored revolving light you stole from my front yard last night had been used by our family for 30 years. You probably weren't even born back then. That light was originally used to illuminate an aluminum Christmas tree. These aluminum trees weren't designed to be used with electric lights on them. The tree is long gone, now, so is the light. We've lived in Charlestowne East since 1981 and have used that light out in the front yard to shine on a Santa Claus, sleigh and reindeer. This has brought great pleasure to our family, plus many neighbors in the last 15 years.
I hope you enjoy it as much as we did, but you forgot the base for it. Come back, I'll give it to you. Take good care of it and maybe years from now you'll have an 18-month-old that'll really like ``Pa Paw's'' light.
Joseph T. Miller Jr.
Virginia Beach by CNB