My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes 05/26/2020
Portsmouth-City-Clerk
>
Minutes
>
2000s
>
Year 2020
>
Minutes 05/26/2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2020 11:38:30 AM
Creation date
6/23/2020 11:37:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
May 26, 2020 <br /> <br />The following comments were submitted by citizens for the May 26, 2020 Virtual City <br />Council meeting: <br /> <br />20-134 <br /> <br />The executive brief for Item 20-134 asserts that the "athletic fields, parking lot and other <br />amenities are complete at the Cavalier Manor Athletic Complex." In the "Discussion" <br />section of the document are additional details of the improvements made in phases 1, 2a, <br />and 2b. <br />Unmentioned in that narrative, however, is the Cavalier Manor swimming pool. Based on <br />my recollection of past conversations about that amenity, it has a few issues that, if <br />unattended, would render it unusable. If that is the case, rather than scattering the <br />residual $168,658 among various and sundry other outdoor recreation facility repairs in <br />the city, I would prefer to see the funds expended to keep the Cavalier Manor pool in good <br />working order. As one of only two public swimming pools in a city with many miles of <br />waterfront, it is important not only as a recreational asset but also as a place to teach our <br />people how to be safe in the water. I urge you, therefore, to prioritize any needed repairs <br />to the Cavalier Manor pool ahead of deploying the remaining funds elsewhere. <br /> <br />Please let me know if you need additional information. <br /> <br />Yours truly, <br />Mark Geduldig-Yatrofsky, PO Box 50141, Portsmouth, VA 23703-0141, 757967-7298 <br /> <br />20-137 Items Submitted by Council Members <br /> <br />1) <br />1) This piece of new business should state which Councilmember made this <br />proposal and which Councilmember seconded the motion so that the public will <br />know who is putting forth this resolution for approval. <br /> <br />2) Recently in the case of the Armada Hoffler - City Hall relocation, the Council <br />"put the cart before the horse" and failed to pole the sentiment of our citizens <br />regarding whether they wanted demolition of the City Hall and its replacement by <br />a commercial project on the waterfront, proposed by a particular group of <br />developers, whose project the people had not been fully briefed on, nor had they <br />been given a proper venue in which to respond or discuss the matter. This was a <br />major project and would be a huge financial commitment and economic disruption <br />in the downtown. In fact neither the new commercial project nor the new City Hall <br />building had been shown to the Design Review Committee (because previously <br />the Council had conveniently removed specific areas, by spot zoning, and rezoned <br />these targeted sites to specifically eliminate such professional oversight and public <br />due process.) In this instance, the Council chose to disregard the intelligence and <br />sentiments of the public, by subterfuge, by presenting and voting on the relocation <br />of the site first. An attempt was made to hoodwink the citizens into a commitment <br />in which vast amounts of capital expenditure and taxes would be required. The <br />people were astute and recognized the ploy and were clear in their response <br />regarding this sleight of hand. They rejected the Council's overreach by public <br />demand and outrage. Armada Hoffler recognizing the lace of public support <br />removed their interest in the project. <br /> <br />3) In this instance the City Council has negotiated with a casino developer and <br />previously voted to approve a casino on its own volition without consulting with the <br />Citizens. The situation is similar to the previous one, cut behind closed doors with <br />Armada Hoffler. This matter likewise involves large sums of capital and public <br />commitment. This second matter also involves a commitment by the government <br />in a manner that many citizens consider unethical, a dirty vice, and an area in <br />which good government should not be a party to what-so-ever - Gambling. Many <br />citizens do not want to see their tax dollars going to specifically, or even tacitly <br />supporting, or encouraging such a vice. Many citizens feel the matter to be <br />immoral on its own legs, while others see the association or the condoning of <br />gambling by the government as being unethical. Many citizens recognize that <br />gambling is a ruinous contributor to the undermining of families and family values, <br />a promoter of ancillary crimes, and an invitation to other vices such as prostitution, <br />extortion, panhandling, drugs and drug violence, money laundering (especially by <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.