THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, June 6, 1996 TAG: 9606050130
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 114 lines
If you haven't received your notice yet, you soon will. The rate for cable service is going up again. Why aren't you surprised?
In March, we received notice that, effective April 1, the Satellite Package 1 (plus) would be going up from $5.40 to $5.74.
Now the notice will state that, effective July 1, the Satellite Package 1 (plus) will be going from $5.74 to $7.24. If this continues, the paragraph to track the rate increases will take a full column. This rate increase is justified by including the Disney Channel, but it's an all-or-nothing situation.
A rate increase is a rate increase, no matter how you try to cover it up.
But think for a minute: If your rate were at $5.40 with a 3 percent Franchise Tax on March 31, then the true rate was $5.56. With the two increases since March 31, the true cost of a $7.24 rate is $7.46. According to my math, that is $1.90. Add a second or third set and you will add 77 cents per television.
It seems a little like a monopoly exercising its power. Nah. A monopoly wouldn't do that. I believe that I read where a cable company in the area added Disney as part of its basic package without increasing rates. If they could do that for their customers, why not Falcon?
The city government is waiting for a consultant to help in the evaluation of the Falcon situation. In the meantime, we face the wrath of a monopoly trying to bleed us for every dollar possible before it is made to account for its actions.
Watch the info-mercials and you would think they are the most benevolent cable company in the area. It is this writer's opinion that it is a self-serving program that does little to improve the dialogue between Falcon and its customers. A more meaningful format would be a live call-in show where customers could call to get answers as well as voice their frustration with Falcon. What a novel idea - listen to customers and solve their problems.
Sooner or later, we must face the fact that, unless we as consumers and citizens do something about the situation, nothing will improve. Change will happen, as we are experiencing today, but not to our benefit. Falcon seems to have no fear of our city and its leaders. They must believe that the city can't or won't break the franchise agreement. These rate increases are nothing more than Falcon thumbing its nose at the city, its management and us.
How long are you going to take it before you stand up and proclaim, ``We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore?'' The decision is yours. Now is the time to let the city and Falcon know how you feel. Don't put it off. To quote a lead into an earlier article on Falcon, ``Light up the complaint line and say no to Falcon.''
Terry Mottley
Dumville Avenue
Suffolk Get rid of alcohol, you could gain a life
Drinking alcohol is not glamorous and should not be treated as such. Alcohol impairs your ability to think and slows your reaction time. Many children today live in households where alcohol is readily available. They grow up thinking alcohol is just a way of life, whether in the car or at home.
I believe any person charged with driving under the influence should automatically lose his license for a year and should be required to work a designated number of hours in a local hospital emergency room. There, the offender will see the broken bodies of the accident victims and the grieving families who come to identify their bodies. They will be able to see firsthand the seriousness of drinking and driving.
Alcohol advertisements should be banned. They tell the public drinking is cool, when in fact alcohol-related accidents are the leading cause of death for 16- to 24-year- olds.
Start a new slogan, ``Don't Drink - Get a Life.''
Jordan R. Shafer
Grayfalcon Drive
Norfolk No benefit to Suffolk from YES' proposal
Suffolk taxpayers are about to be presented a community activity to pour tax dollars into, with little expectation of deriving any benefit.
The YES program proposed by Regent University will be the responsibility of all Suffolk residents, not only the local neighborhood. Contrary to assurances by Regent University and EDAW Inc. representatives, when the YES program goes into operation, Suffolk taxpayers will be providing water, sewerage, fire protection and police services and any other facility available.
This property will be tax exempt and will not contribute to the Suffolk tax base. Regent plans to build 50,000 square feet of dorms plus a cafeteria and other buildings to support 250 at-risk students. Suffolk residents get little enough now for the amount of taxes paid. We do not need to invite additional problems or projects to support.
Instead of hiring a consultant to recommend disposition of the property, City Council should have tasked the city manager to develop a plan for use of all the property to benefit Suffolk. The wildlife refuge, city park and little league will add to Suffolk. All the property should have been directed to this or similar use. Building structures should not be permitted. If other use should be determined to benefit Suffolk in the future, the city would have the property.
Regent University is a wealthy, tax-exempt operation-for-profit private organization with resources to purchase property anywhere they desire. The proposal to pass 35 acres to Regent is paramount to giving them $350,000 (based on the assessment on my property).
Does anyone believe that you can separate Regent University from CBN and the Christian Coalition? If Regent gets the property, they will use it for whatever purpose they desire, including 10 acres which has been designated as ``back lot.''
My opposition to Regent (and I believe that of the other local neighborhoods) has nothing to do with race. Also, Navy Secretary John Dalton has more to worry about than what will happen to this 600-acre facility that has been declared surplus to Navy needs. I have little doubt that he will accept any reasonable recommendation by City Council. City Council should not recommend that this property be passed to Regent. EDAW Inc. should have been reminded who hired them, and for what purpose, after the community meetings.
Suffolk has nothing to gain by turning the property over to Regent, and it is time for citizens to stand up and demand that tax money be spent to benefit Suffolk residents.
George E. Gaddis
Kings Highway
Suffolk by CNB