THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 TAG: 9610290006
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 36 lines
This is in response to Dan Ballard's strong criticism of The Pilot (``A modest economic proposal . . . ,'' letter, Oct. 21). He is overlooking a few points:
1. For generations, Norfolk has done very badly with managing its downtown redevelopment . . . with such clear failures that Norfolk is used by architecture schools nationwide as a bad example.
2. The purpose of the MacArthur Center is to repair some of this damage. Thus, we are in the process of trading public treasure, in major real estate and substantial loan guarantees, to catalyze public good; there must be a balance struck between what works commercially and what works to the benefit of the community.
3. Seeing the inadequacies of the developer's plan, some local design professionals voluntarily offered advice to the city administration. (I am not involved in this group.) We should be concerned and appreciative when such a grass-roots phenomenon occurs.
4. Unlike the situation Ballard describes, the city is the major partner in this deal. Much public treasure is at risk and, more importantly, it's the last big chance this generation to catch up to modern America in terms of urban infrastructure.
As the issues have unfolded, The Pilot has reported on them. How can Ballard object to that? I myself would have expected a more active role by the paper as it adopts the precepts of ``public journalism.''
I say, when we risk both public treasure and the public good, let's have more reporting, more examination of the technical aspects involved, not less. Incidentally, I have a degree from MIT in architecture and city planning.
TED GORANSON
Virginia Beach, Oct. 21, 1996 by CNB