THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 8, 1996 TAG: 9609060203
SECTION: CHESAPEAKE CLIPPER PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letters
LENGTH: 155 lines
This is in response to the article called ``State official contradicts fire chief (The Virginian-Pilot, Aug. 30).
It seems to me that for quite a long while, even before the tragic fire that occurred on March 18, many people and organizations have contradicted what Chief Michael L. Bolac has been saying and doing in regard to the Fire Department, its policies and the safety and welfare of its firefighters and paramedics. Yet, the man is still in charge of a department which handles life-and-death situations every day! Please help me understand how this can be.
No matter what wrongs occur in his department, the chief refuses to take responsibility - a negative report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, misappropriated monies, violations of state and national safety standards, lack of sufficient radios, lack of manpower and lack of trust in his abilities to perform as a competent fire administrator.
The chief was quoted in the paper as saying, ``How would you feel, when you know that these 350 employees do the best job that they possibly can and, between the media and these special interests, they are constantly being questioned?'' The chief still doesn't get the picture. It is not the firefighters who are constantly being questioned. It's him!
I cringe every time I read an article or see a TV report in which the chief rebuts with a statement to the effect, ``I would never second-guess what Frank and John did.'' No one else is second-guessing them either. Yes, the Fire Department employees do the best job that they possibly can, and so did Frank and John, but they had to do the best job they could with what they had, and what they had was not enough.
The chief says, ``We'll never know what Johnnie and Frank knew about the type of roof. So whether they felt it was metal or wood, they made a decision to go in in spite of that.'' He's right to an extent, but whether the roof was metal or wood, if they had known that if they got into trouble they would not have been missed for 20 minutes or that the radio system on which they depended would fail or that they would run out of water, I don't think they would have gone in. I don't think anybody would have.
Lisa Kreisel
Suffolk
Editor's note: Mrs. Kreisel is the wife of a Chesapeake firefighter. Harassing motorists
The weekend of Aug. 16-18 someone had the brilliant idea to pass out surveys on U.S. 17 South and Va. 168 South.
I did not see what happened on Highway 17, but 168 South was a massive nightmare. Having been unfortunate enough to have to go to Chesapeake on Saturday, I was caught twice. On the way north no surveys were being passed to motorists yet traffic was backed up to the state line. On my return trip traffic started backing up on the bypass around Great Bridge. Once I got to the survey checkpoint no surveys were being passed out. They were trying to push people through.
Doesn't the Traffic Department of Chesapeake know that once back-ups start you can't get rid of them easily? Maybe there was a hidden motive to harass people heading to the Outer Banks. There has to be a better way, folks!
As usual, Virginia is behind on handling the traffic problems in the Tidewater area, and we in Northeastern North Carolina are caught in their inability to deal with growth.
Renee Cahoon
Nags Head, N.C. Way off track
When my fellow citizens voted for pari-mutuel betting eight years ago, did they mean to grant permission for a gambling parlor to move next door to a grocery store? Perhaps not, but that is exactly what they did.
When the off-track betting parlor opened in Chesapeake without public debate, I phoned the city to find out why. Contact with the offices of the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Zoning Department revealed this: Because state law permitted it and no zoning variances were required (the parlor went into a former grocery store, I believe) there was nothing to debate, and the gambling parlor could move in like any other business.
Now, if I were running a big-time gambling enterprise, here's what I'd do. Appeal to a state's agrarian history and tradition to allow horse racing, and settle for a handful of off-track parlors for starters (just to raise capital for as long as I can get by with it). I'd put them in obscure parts of the community at first (out of sight, out of mind). In about a year so so, I'd add some slot machines and other goodies. Then I would ask to double the number of my sites (like the new track principal Jacobs has already said).
OK, it's not exactly a scenic, nostalgic outing for horse enthusiasts, but I ask you: Why build an expensive horse track when you can just run a few wires and accomplish the same thing?
Sen. Mark L. Earley is exactly right: Virginians didn't bargain for that.
Barbara Grigg
Kemp Lane Rethink decision
Two items in the Aug. 25 issue of The Clipper should be of concern to all in the southern part of Chesapeake and have led me to want to share the following comments.
1. Ronald Speer's piece entitled ``We need better roads, not surveys'' is an excellent analysis of the Route 168 disaster. One delay after another in getting anything but surveying accomplished leads one to suspect that the delays are in fact delaying techniques. It is apparent that building a road to deal with traffic snarls between Great Bridge and the North Carolina line is not a priority on the agenda of either Chesapeake or the state of Virginia in their allocation of funds. Then, The Clipper relegated Mr. Speer's article to the right-hand bottom corner of page 42! North Carolina has done its part in providing safe passage for its citizens to contribute to the economy of southeastern Virginia. Let's be good neighbors and do our part! The Clipper might help by reprinting Mr. Speer's comments in a more prominent position in a forthcoming issue!
2. Regarding the City Council's decision not to have a referendum on city growth this fall, the president of the Tidewater Association of Realtors is quoted as saying that ``adequate public facilities ordinances place additional financial burdens on developers. Costs will be passed on to consumers and taxes will be raised. . . '' That line of thinking has been championed ever since the debate on growth began in our city! Providing adequate public facilities as the population increases is bound to cost, and the struggle is all about who pays the bill. Is it possible that developers and builders charge their buyers less than the market will bear? Is it possible that contributing to the cost of providing adequate public facilities might just cut into the margin of profit developers and builders are now enjoying? If the new home buyers should not pay the cost of additional public facilities and neither should the developers and builders, who is left to pay the bill? No one but all of the taxpayers! Let the homebuyers pay their initiation fee with the help from the developers and builders. And then let all of us get on with needs like Route 168. The City Council needs to rethink its decision regarding the referendum.
Elizabeth B. Hanbury
Beaver Dam Road Teams win games
This letter is in response to the letter in The Clipper dated Aug. 17, ``Scheduling conflict,'' from James Kennon.
The apology he talked about in his letter is good, but I don't believe that it was from his heart. Mr. Kennon hurt a lot of children and their parents by leaving his All-Star team. The team should have been his No. 1 concern.
``Statistics show that our team probably would not have advanced past the local first round of play without the experienced managers and the six players,'' he wrote. This comment is hogwash. This is not fair to the other players and parents on this All-Star team.
The players that he left behind were a part of a team. Teams are what win games - not individuals. Any good manager or coach knows that. Whose statistics were these? His team did get through the district and the sectional, didn't they? What makes him think that they could not go any farther?
Several years ago, before AAU was introduced in Great Bridge, Great Bridge Baseball had two teams go to the East Zone World Series. In 1992, my son's Mustang team went through district, sectional and regional tournaments to get to the East Zone World Series in Swansea, Mass. This group of fine ball players played all through this series and ended up in second place. So Mr. Kennon can't tell me that these managers and players needed AAU to get them as far as they got.
I personally think that Great Bridge Baseball did the right thing by suspending Mr. Kennon. He did wrong by leaving those young players high and dry. As manager of this team, he was supposed to be there to set examples for those youngsters. If he knew that the other coaches had no experience that was more reason for him to stay. That just shows me where his heart was, not for Great Bridge Baseball and those he left behind.
Keith C. Shite
Fordyce Drive by CNB