Minutes 09/09/1958 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 9, 1958. structed in the vicinity of Grant Street, Carver Circle and Manteo Street (near Station Point 390 on drawing B40). The pedestrian underpass in this vicinity is necessitated because of approximately 800 students attending Douglas Park Elementary School, S.H. Clarke~Junior High School, and I.C. Norcum High School. This underpass would afford a more convenient access to the schools for the above-mentioned students. 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the Federal Interstate Route #64 be relocated from its present positio~ between station points 395 and 420 (drawings B40 and B44) in a more northerly position, and that the proposed future interchange to the pro~osed Pinners Point ~unnel be shifted to an area located between Frederick Boulevard and the Seaboard Air Line Railroad and Belt Line Railroad. This change is recommended to prevent the relocation of businesses in the area amounting to approximately $500,000., plus an additional six or seven hundred thousand dollars incurred inthe dis - ruption of Seaboard Air Line Railroad property. The above-mentioned area be- tween Frederick Boulevard, Seaboard Air Line Railroad and Belt Line Railroad is recommended because it is more feasible both from an economical and engi- neering standpoint. 4. A recommendation was previously made in our letter dated June 10, 1958, which in essence recommends that the V~rginia State 5ighway system provide and construct an interchange and connection from Federal Interstate Route #64 to High Street. This would provide a direct route from the Federal Interstate Route #64 ~o the proposed Pinners Point tunnel. This connection could be constructed from the area mentioned in recommendation No. 3 above (which lies between Frederick Boulevard, Seaboard Air Line RailDad and Belt Line Railroad) to emerge at High Street in the vicinity of Eighth or Ninth Avenues." Motion of Mr. Walker that the Manager arrange a conference of the Council with the State Highway Department representatives in regard to this mat~er, was adopted. 58-286 - The following letter from the ~ortsmouth Chamber of Commerce, Frank Mantz, Managing Director, was read: "Due to the extreme importance to the City of Portsmouth and its citizens, of the construction of the proposed U.S. Highway No. 64, from Bowers.Hill into Portsmouth and down into the tunnel en - trance, the Highway and Roads Committee .of .the Portsmouth Chamber of ~Commerce offers their services in an effort to co-ordinate the activities of the Cify and County and all interested parties to the end that we may have any plans that the Highway Department has in mind co - ordinated to the benefit of our area. Members of our Committee are cognizant of the fact that the Highway Department un - questionably will be interested in views that have community backing. In order to co-ordi~te the community benefits, we suggest that a meeting of all persons concerned, namely the City Council, the Chamber Committee, the City Planning Engineer's office, City Planning Commission, the County Board of Supervzsors and Planners, be held with the idea that suggestions from this body would co-ordinate the thinking of this ares in order for us as a whole to present to th~ State Highway Department a united plan." Motion of Mr. Breedlove that this be received as information and filed, was adopted. 58-287 - Mr. Walker spoke, referring to certain editorials appearing in local newspapers, and I asked that the following be admitted to record: "Mr. Chairman~ certain erroneous newspaper editorials of recent date have been brought to my attendion and need immediate clarification. Specifically, I refer to the editorials which have appeared in the Portsmouth Star-Norfolk Ledger Dispatch dated June 8, Ju~ue 11, June 12 and September 8, 1958. These editorials ha ye placed us three newcomers in a most incorrect light on what has been a highly controversial issue. I refer to the single assessor ordinance which was repealed in the refer- endum on June 10, 1958. In ~hese editorials the following statements were made~ and I quote: "Since the Breed- love-Seward-Walker ticket had pledged itself to repeal of the assessmen~ ordinance long before the referendum was called .... " (June 9); "Portsmouth voters followed nearly all pre-election signs Tuesday in electing the anti- administration Breedlove- Seward-Walker ticket to the three sea~s at stake on the City Council and voting to re- peal the controversial single-assessor ordinance ~hich these three had strongly opposed" (June 11); "We presume advocates of repealing the ordinance considered all the factors involved, and had a precise program of action ~n mind, before promising a return to the 1957 asssasmen~ figures," (June 12). The editorial comment along this line continues and I quote again: "The three new members of the Council -- Vice Mayor Breedlove and Councilman Seward and Walker - had campaigned on a platform that included a return to 1957 assessments and a rejection of the single-assessor law." (September 8). These four statements which I have quoted have stated to the people of Portsmouth that we newcomers positively campaigned for repeal of the single assessor system. Nothing could be more erroneousI for on March 19, 1958, we released a statement which was printed in the same newspaper clearly setting out our p~ogram. Reference to that newspaper of March 19 on the first page of the second section will show that our plat-' form was as follows, and I quote: "We are not unmindful of the fact that the administration has made definite budget commitments and so, with th~S~ obligations in mind, we feel 5hat seven things need to be done promptly in order to solve both the ~managemen~ and tax problems without disrupting governmen~ operation: L. The tax assessor and/or his staff should be replaced immediately by residents of the City who actually know the real fair market value of taxable property. 2. The assessment ordinance should be amended i~mediately ~o provide for (a) s sufficient delay of its effective date to allow an assessor ~o compute the real fair market value of all taxable properties, and (b) immediate re~urn to the old (1957) assessed values. 3. The tax rate should be adjusted so that when it is applied ~o the old assessed values the revenue needed to fulfill thebbudget obligations will be raised. 4. This system should remain in force until the real fair market, values are com- puted.