THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, August 24, 1996 TAG: 9608260303
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 63 lines
The battle lines were clearly drawn at the Chesapeake City Council meeting Tuesday.
On one side were speakers who identified themselves as citizens. They all favored having a referendum on growth control as part of the regular election Nov. 5.
On the other side were business owners, Realtors and representatives of business groups. They foresaw a ruinous drop in economic development if the referendum were allowed.
By a 5-3 vote, council sided with business. There will be no referendum. Voters were shut out for the second year in a row. Last year's vote was 5-4.
Had the council vote gone the other way Tuesday, voters would have decided whether the city should ask the General Assembly to amend the city charter to create growth-control measures. Those measures would allow the city to deny subdivision plans, site plans or building permits if the council believed that nearby public facilities like roads, schools, sewers and water lines could not handle the growth.
Growth would be permitted only if needed improvements were included in the city's capital-improvement budget or paid for by the developer.
That would be a profound change in Virginia, where cities traditionally respond to, rather than prepare for, growth.
For example, schools typically are built only after the children to fill them are overcrowding existing schools. In today's jargon, Virginia cities are reactive, not proactive, in regard to growth.
In a position paper presented to council, the Chesapeake division of the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce made three points against the referendum.
1. ``The proposed referendum will hamper and potentially decrease economic development in the city of Chesapeake.'' The paper assumes (a) the referendum would pass, (b) the General Assembly would approve the requested measures and (c) City Council would use the new growth-control tools foolishly.
Crucial to business growth, the paper states, is the labor force, which would be reduced by the growth-control measures. Also, the paper says, adoption of the measures would ``create confusion about whether Chesapeake wants business. . . .''
2. ``Referendums are a poor planning and economic-development tool.'' They cause uncertainty, the paper says.
3. ``Current Chesapeake planning and growth policies are adequate and flexible.''
Folks on the other side of the battle line argue:
1. Proposed measures would control but not end growth.
2. Citizens should have a direct voice on a matter that profoundly affects them.
3. Current planning and growth policies must not be working, since roads and schools are overcrowded. Only salty water ranked ahead of growth as a concern of citizens, according to a survey the city recently conducted.
Obviously, turning the growth spigot completely off would be a huge mistake. Businesses, besides providing products, services and jobs, pay city taxes. That money is sorely needed.
Furthermore, residents cannot expect their city to stop changing once they move into it.
Still, Chesapeake residents have a problem. They elect candidates who pledge to control growth, but those candidates then vote against a referendum that would be a step toward providing more tools for growth management.
The referendum should have been approved. by CNB