|
June 26~ 1973
<br />
<br /> "We, the undersigned w6utd like to speak before the Portsmouth~City Council, on
<br />Tuesday, June 26, 1973, in re~g,a~r[ds to "Ordinance to-amend the city code of the City of
<br />Portsmouth, Virginia, by adding thereto sections 10-65.1, 10-65.2, 10-65.3, 19-65.4,
<br />10-65.5, 10-65.6 and 10-6~.7 providing for certain real estate tax relief for the elderly.
<br />
<br />Mr. Jenkins spoke.
<br />Mr. Lewis spoke.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Hoi~ey and seconded by Mr. Johnson,
<br />and to be placed on next agenda (previously presented
<br />recommendation), was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />to be referred to the City Manager,
<br />to Municipal Finance Commission for
<br />
<br /> 7S-270 - The following letter received from Mr. Robert C. Parker, Jr., 4224 Burhham
<br />Drive, was read:
<br />
<br /> "Recently I have been made aware, through an article appearing in the June 14 edition
<br />of the Ledger-Star, of an undesirable, and potentially serious situation. Said situation
<br />is that of the Portsmouth City Council's approval of construction of a "Tot Lot" in the
<br />Churchland residential area of Edgefield, on Burnham Drive.
<br />
<br /> As I indicated in our telephone conversation of Friday, June 15, this venture
<br />(Tot Lot) was a complete~surprise to all persons directly concerned with the impending
<br />construction same, namely those individuals residing in homes located on property adjoin-
<br />ing the proposed site on Burhham Drive.
<br />
<br /> It is with full realization that the "secrecy" wRich enveloped this highly objection-
<br />able situation was in no part your responsibility, I, nevertheless, forward the following
<br />comments concerning such a venture to your office for your permsnal. Your assistance in
<br />ensuring that the proper authorities are made aware of the deep concern of those residents
<br />most appreciably affected is desired.
<br />
<br /> Edgefield is a Churchland residential area consisting solely of single-family, pre-
<br />dominately single-level dwellings. There are few "main through streets", thus affording
<br />homeowners a degree of privacy, serenity, safety as far as their children are concerned.
<br />It is with this in mind that many of the current residents chose Edgefield in the first
<br />place for their homes. Those residents who have children qnR~ifFlmga~sr the title of "Tot~
<br />or more specifically, those with children under the age of eight years are, for the most
<br />part, in possession of backyard playground equipment of numerous degrees of complexity and
<br />magnitude. This is easily confirmed by simply glancing down any Edgefield street and
<br />witnessing the backyards of those concerned with such items.
<br />
<br /> Why, then, is such a venture as imposing a public "Tot Lot" in the center of a re-
<br />sidential area, where such ~.imes abound, a~necessity? Mr. Johnson, you were "quoted" by
<br />the Ledger-Star as recommending that only~the '~Tot Lot~' on Burhham Drive be constructed
<br />at this time. Should this venture be a "necessity", and I am not convinced that this is
<br />the case, would it nor be more appropriately constructed at the site proposed near lhe
<br />Junior High S~hool area in Merrifields, a location which not only would afford a less
<br />offensive situation to the environment with the ~nnior High School located nearby, but
<br />more effectively could serve the needs of the residents located in the apartment/town
<br />house complexes currentIy under construction in the near proximity to the Junior High Schoc
<br />location?
<br />
<br /> Furthermore, I question the inclusion of lighting for the area. In a strictly resi-
<br />dential area, this would appear more as a blight than an asset. Other than for possibly
<br />safety, what need is there for lighting when only "Tots~' are allegedly authorized to use
<br />the project? Are "Tots" to be encouraged to remain after dark? I hard~ think this to be
<br />a satisfactory situation.
<br />
<br /> The need for recreatianal facilities in the Churchland area, possibly at the teenage
<br />level, cannot be questioned by me at this time, but the inclusion of a playground for
<br />"rots" in an area containing only single-family dwellings is lacking in forethought. The
<br />need might be elsewhere, but certainly not on the proposed Burnham Drive site.
<br />
<br /> Does not the desire of a homeowner, and I might add a taxpayer, carry any weight?
<br />Why should a person maintain his home and surrounding property neat, clean an attractive
<br />only to-have a public playground inappropriately constructed in the vicinity (very near
<br />proximity). Surely a taxpayer deserves the right to be consulted beforehand on such a
<br />venture and not simply to be used as a pawn.
<br />
<br /> I would like to ensure all of the persons concerned with the proposal and impending
<br />construation of this venture that we concerned homeowners do have desires and feelings,
<br />and, if nothing more, deserve the courtesy to be heard prior to the passage of such a
<br />preposterous, inappropriate undertaking.
<br />
<br /> Your concern ~r this matter and assurance that all authroities connected with this-
<br />venture are more than hastily and superficially apprised of the "feelings" of those home-
<br />owners directly concerned would be greatly appreciated. In order for one to maintain
<br />faith in his city government, he has to first be sure that all projects affecting his well
<br />being are being correctly and judiciouly handled, and not simply, to use a colloquial but
<br />unfortunately in this case appropriate term, being "forced hown his throat".
<br />
<br />The following petition received:
<br />
<br /> "We, the residents and homeowners of the Subdivision of Edgefield, City of Portsmouth
<br />strongly object to the proposed Council approved, construction sf a "TOT LOT" on the City
<br />
<br />
<br />
|