Not good for Buckroe
By Bob Padgett
Daily Press
May 24, 2007
Who asked for a "compromise" where Buckroe Lots B were concerned? Certainly not over 12,000 Hampton petitioners who requested Lots B be kept as a city park and not sold for residential development
Certainly not 554 of 600 citizens who replied to the recent city-sponsored public opinion survey. Their choice of Option D/D-1 showed new housing fronting the park, not on Lots B.
Only 10 people requested Option B in the city's survey. With Option B, thousands lose by coming away with two pocket parks surrounded by traffic, residential development on all three Lots B, and not enough off-street public parking for visitors to Buckroe's public park.
What gives the council the right to ignore thousands of Hampton residents? What gives the council the right to ignore professional advice from a certified floodplain manager and from a Virginia state environmental planner and to ignore proven facts and statistics contrary to council members' personal opinions?
Visit www.hampton.gov/council to hear the inane excuses five council members gave as their reasons for voting for Option B.
For the past two years, thousands of Hampton residents have requested a city park without residential housing and with ample off-street public parking for all three Lots B.
The only people for whom Buckroe will be a better place are the few who will be able to purchase the homes now permitted on Lots B by Option B. Oh, and developers' pocketbooks. But certainly for thousands of Hampton families, visitors and tourists, now and in the future, Buckroe is not going to be a better place as inferred in one of your earlier editorials ("Redeveloping Buckroe," Jan. 15).
Visit www.buckroebeach.org to view Options B and D-1.
Bob Padgett
Hampton
