THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 20, 1996 TAG: 9610180189
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letters
LENGTH: 64 lines
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment regarding the cartoon that appeared on the Beacon's Oct. 12 Editorial Page. I am the first to agree that political cartoons are a valuable and effective means of commenting on current events and issues. However, even cartoons should be accurate; and when they are not, they do an extreme disservice to readers by causing them to make important voting decisions based upon misinformation.
The cartoon in question depicted a gentleman in suit and tie telling an obviously concerned citizen that a redevelopment and housing authority is ``the obvious answer to our troubled neighborhoods'' because it could ``condemn old cheap housing for the poor and replace it with upscale shops and expensive housing.'' If your staff members had done their homework, they would have known that the primary purpose of a redevelopment and housing authority is to make safe and sanitary housing available to persons of low, moderate, and middle income and to rehabilitate blighted and deteriorated areas which constitute a menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the entire community. They would also have known that an authority cannot condemn houses solely on the basis that the houses are old, inexpensive or owned by poor persons. There are strict criteria which must be met before an authority can designate an area as the subject of a redevelopment project, and these criteria would be addressed in a redevelopment plan that would have to be presented to and approved by, the City Council prior to its implementation.
The cartoon was, at best, extremely misleading. Additionally, it unfairly implied that City Council intends to use an authority for the purpose indicated in the cartoon, even though anyone who has followed this issue at council meetings and in the press would know that the council has never expressed or even intimated any desire to use the power of condemnation to take property belonging to poor citizens and use it for the benefit of the wealthy.
John A. Baum
City Councilman
Blackwater Borough Who determines `average' teachers?
I am not surprised that School Board Member Dan Arris plans to present a proposal to the School Board to get rid of ``average teachers.'' I am surprised, however, that Delegates Bob McDonnell and Glenn Croshaw have given any support to this appalling idea.
What is the definition of an ``average'' teacher? Is it a teacher who only takes one class a year instead of two? Is it someone who stays at school to work instead of going home to grade papers, write plans, and make phone calls? Perhaps it's the teacher who doesn't retain students instead of the teacher who wants the children to learn. Or is it the teacher who spends $750 per year on classroom supplies instead of $500?
Maybe we should get rid of the average students. Let's all teach just the gifted students. In that way we can be portrayed as an above average teacher. How about only teaching those students who come from a traditional home; dad works, mom stays at home, two and one-half well-adjusted children, living on a tree-lined street in a brick house with a white picket fence.
Oh, yes! And they never move five times before first grade.
Instead of ``getting rid of average teachers,'' Mr. Arris should ask ``How can I help this wonderful teaching force?''
Shelley Johnson-Deneau
White Oaks Elementary School
Oct. 14 by CNB