THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 27, 1996 TAG: 9610250205
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letters
LENGTH: 65 lines
Homeowners and homeless both have rights
I am writing in regard to your editorial in the Oct. 13 Beacon discussing the homeless shelter that was proposed for London Bridge Road. I am one of the residents of Nottingham South, the neighborhood which opposed this shelter, and I resent the way you have portrayed us.
We are not uncaring people who would rather not deal with homeless in our area, but we are people who are realistic and have witnessed what can happen to a neighborhood when homeless people have overstayed their welcome at the shelters.
I am, of course, speaking of the Birdneck wooded area across from the Judeo-Christian Outreach Shelter, where the homeless are known to camp. We also have many wooded areas surrounding our neighborhood which could serve the same purpose. You also must be aware that the proposed site for this shelter was in the middle of an industrial park, and if you have ever traveled down London Bridge Road you would know that there are no sidewalks or stores near this site.
I can sympathize with the Homeless Advisory Committee's dilemma, but City Council has also rejected sites closer to the oceanfront, where the homeless tend to congregate, because of its close proximity to our ``tourist area.'' Who's back yard are we trying to keep them out of there? Is it better for tourists to see the homeless loitering in our libraries and fast-food restaurants rather than seeing them at a shelter provided for them?
I do believe we have a responsibility to the homeless, but we also have a responsibility to the established neighborhoods in our city and the taxpayers who live there.
Lillian N. Whitney
Oct. 14
Foster's retirement community plan isn't all that it appears
There have been many letters for the city to approve the development of Mr. Foster's ``retirement community'' on Indian River Road.
Many say that it will preserve 400 or so acres of land, but this land is already protected as it is wetlands. Some have said that Mr. Foster will put in all of the roads, etc., at no cost to the city. This is nothing new as all developers are responsible to install the streets, sewers and stormwater drainage systems, at no cost to the city, as well as street lighting and widening of roads for turn lanes. On top of this, ``proffers'' are given in cash or other resources to the city to offset the future expenses of city maintenance of the developed property.
There are many things that the developer does to a property to be able to sell it to the homeowner, and all of them are at the developer's expense. He makes a profit when he sells the lots and houses. All of the ``public'' utilities are then given to the city.
I think it would be nice if you would run a story about the things the city pays for when a developer wants to turn farm land into housing.
Mr. Foster saying that he could not afford this type of development if he had to go somewhere else to buy the land because it would cost too much is true, but we don't need a developer to preserve land that is already protected and preserved.
I think Mr. Foster has done much more for the communities he has created than most developers would and I thank him for this. The flags that fly over many of his projects tell us where his heart is, but if it is not profitable to him to develop this type of community it will have to wait for another time and place.
Charlie Bowdoin
Sept. 20 by CNB