speechGSPC

by Sandra Canepa

I have here a copy of the Planning Department’s proposed amendment to the Buckroe Master Plan, specifically their proposal for the Bayfront Initiative under that plan. As most of you know, the Bayfront Initiative is the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites…shown as Lots B on the slide and on our website www.buckroebeach.org.

This proposed amendment of the Planning Department was made public yesterday, and can also be found on our website. The Planning Department has submitted it for Planning Commission’s consideration prior to a vote on it at a public hearing on November 14.

As background, the viewing audience may recall that on September 14, City Council requested the Planning Department take a “second look” at the recommendations in the adopted Buckroe Master Plan. That also meant the Planning Department was to take a “second look” at the Bayfront Initiative of the plan.

The Bayfront Initiative, you may also recall, recommended the development of high-density, high cost condominiums on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park site, or Lots B on the slide.

In September, when Council requested the “second look” at the Bayfront Initiative, over 8,000 Hampton residents had already signed the petition to say “NO” to condos on Lots B and “YES” to having those lots designated as a city park for our now and future generations.

Since September, however, the number of Hampton residents that have signed the petition to stop the condos on their property, those B Lots, has grown considerably,, and Phyllis Flanders will update you on the petition drive and signatures in a few minutes.

However, even with thousands of Hampton residents saying NO to putting high cost residential development on this property owed by all Hampton residents, this report, this “second look” from the Planning Department continues to recommend high cost, high density residential development on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites. (Again. Lots B on the screen.).

Do you know what they base this absurd decision of theirs on, it is based entirely on the possibility that Hampton MAY get Fort Monroe. They say this in several paragraphs of their report. For instance in one place they say, “The recent decision to close Fort Monroe MAY PROVIDE additional opportunities to leverage the value of open space…”, and again, I quote, “This area of Fort Monroe MAY be appropriate for re-use as open space……”

We all know we DO NOT know whether or not Hampton is going to get Fort Monroe. We have some ideas, we have some hopes, but we still have nothing to take to any bank, and we will not get anything to take to a bank for years to come, if it comes.

Right now, however, and for years to come, our Hampton City Council has only the Bayfront Initiative to offer to its citizens for open space amenities.

Right now, we have it, it is bought and paid for, and it belongs to all Hampton residents, who are saying by way of the petition, by phone calls, by personal conversations with Council members, by e-mails, by Exit Surveys from the Oct 11 public presentation on the Buckroe Master Plan, they DO NOT want residential development on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park sites.

Yet with all of this citizen opposition to residential development on those lots, the Planning Department is still trying to stick it to Hampton citizens by requesting the Planning Commission, and ultimately City Council, approve development on the bayfront blocks.

They say, basically, because of THE POTENTIAL of getting Fort Monroe, residential development on the Buckroe Beach bayfront lots will not preclude THE POTENTIAL future of green space because we MAY have Fort Monroe. Again, not that we have Fort Monroe but we MAY get it.

How nonsensical is that reasoning?

It’s like holding a million dollars in cash in your hands, and it blows away in the wind when you reach to buy a multi-million dollar lottery ticket. If your lottery ticket doesn’t win, you end up with absolutely nothing.

If the Planning Commission on November 14th, and then Hampton City Council, approves this proposed recommendation that Lots B be developed with condominiums or housing because of the “potential” of “maybe” getting Fort Monroe, and if Hampton doesn’t get Fort Monroe, then, like the million dollars and lottery ticket, Hampton residents will end up with absolutely nothing of our last remaining open areas at Buckroe Beach.

I urgently request the Planning Commission and Council direct the Planning Department to return to their drawing board and look at another recommendation for Initiative 1, The Bayfront, under their proposed amendment to the Buckroe Master Plan.

I recommend they continue to move forward with Initiatives 2 through 4 under their proposed amendment but that they recommend Initiative 1, the Bayfront, be removed from consideration by the Planning Department at this time.

I suggest they recognize that Initiative 1, The Bayfront, is a city-wide issue. Those 10-acres, along with the current Buckroe Park and the public beach, while located in the Buckroe area of Hampton, belong to all Hampton citizens and need to be addressed separately from the Buckroe Master Plan.

The Bayfront Initiative needs its own Steering Committee comprised of citizens and leaders from throughout the City of Hamton to sit down and work on a plan for those lots that will satisfy the vast majority of Hampton residents.

Furthermore, and to be fair, any Steering Committee tasked with deciding the fate of Lots B should represent Hampton’s population. In other words 50% of a newly formed Steering Committee for the Bayfront Initiative should be white, 45% of its members should be black, and 5% should be Asian and Hispanic.

There were 18 members of the Buckroe Master Plan Steering Committee who voted to take 10-acres of beautiful bayfront property away from all 147,000 Hampton citizens

How many of those 18 members on the original Steering Committee for those lots were black, Asian or Hispanic citizens of Hampton?

For all of the above reasons, this proposed “second look” amendment by the Planning Department for the Bayfront Initiative still stinks, is ugly and is still extremely unfair to all Hampton residents and taxpayers.

That beautiful gateway to the Chesapeake Bay was bought, paid for, and belongs to all 147,000 Hampton citizens, and I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to listen to what Hampton citizens, the majority of which are voters, are saying they want on our Buckroe Beach Bayfront lots.

Thank you.

S. Canepa

by Trish Ferraro

March 14, 2005, I stood before the Planning Commission in opposition of the adoption of the Bay Front Initiative portion of the Buckroe Master Plan.

I was there because I realized only a few people were aware of the public planning meetings being held for citizen participation and input on the plan that proposed residential development on the former Buckroe Beach Amusement Park site. I was aware that the only method of advertisement for the public meetings was through the Buckroe Civic Association newsletter, and I knew that excluded many people who might have an interest in what the plan was proposing.

I knew how special the bay front land is to me, to the many people who live in Buckroe, and to the thousands of the people who visit throughout the year. Also, I knew someone had to step up and speak for the people and save those three lots referred to as “Lots B” for our now and future generations to enjoy.

Equipped with this knowledge, I felt it was my duty to speak against the adoption of the bay front initiative and to alert the citizens of Hampton to the plans to sell Lots B to investors for condominium and other housing development.

I met Phyllis Flanders and Sandra Canepa at that Planning Commission meeting and later we met Cecile Trevathan. Phyllis had prepared a petition and she and Sandra had been busy collecting signatures since January 2005, and by March had collected over 1000 signatures. The four of us acknowledged our encounters and recognized our role in serving the people in saving the public land at Buckroe. We now represent over 9000 Hampton citizens who are counting on us to continue our support until those three lots are saved.

The controversy started, and we realized the Bay Front Initiative portion of the Buckroe Master Plan was wrong. It is wrong because it proposes to sell ten acres of beautiful waterfront and near waterfront property, currently owned and enjoyed by all Hampton residents, to investors for a development that will benefit only a select few.

Our grass roots effort is to save the bay front property, and our goal is to have the area designated as a world-class city park for the recreational use and enjoyment of all Hampton citizens, visitors, tourists, and most importantly our future generations.

We believe a professionally designed Chesapeake Bay Front Park with shaded benches and walkways; open green fields for flying kites, playing pick-up games, and running; and ample parking for everyone, will be a unique and beautiful attraction for our area. Also, we believe the park should be interspersed with revenue-producing attractions such as a miniature golf course, a nice restaurant, coffee and ice cream shops, beach sport equipment rentals, nice concession booths, more shaded gazebos to better accommodate the large gatherings, etc.

To paraphrase an editorial in the August 30 issue of Port Folio Weekly, Hampton’s elected officials, in short, have an extraordinarily rare opportunity at hand. Upscale developments may have value, but they are not unique. However, each well-designed park is, and in the end, uniqueness is what makes a city thrive.

Now, in addition to the more than 9000 petition signatures Phyllis will be presenting to Council tonight, we have other sources that lend support and validity to our efforts:



We have over 50 businesses that support this cause and who currently or have previously had petitions in their places of business



We have close to 7000 hits on our website at www.buckroebeach.org with over 200 favorable entries written in our Guest Book



We have over 20 citizen support letters published in the Letters to the Editor section of the Daily Press and 1 in Port Folio Weekly



We have over 20 articles written by the Daily Press and Port Folio Weekly staff as well as several stories by our local TV stations



And, we had approximately 500 people come out on a rainy night to attend a presentation on the Buckroe Master Plan who witnessed a controlled, unfair, and unbalanced manipulation that glossed over the efforts to save Lots B from residential development

Furthermore, On September 14th in response to the expected closure of Fort Monroe the City Council decided to take a “second look” at the adopted plan recommendations. The Planning Department submitted their analysis for public review yesterday, and the Planning Commission will hold a meeting on November 14 for public comment.

I have studied the Planning Department’s analysis and recommendation, which is to continue to develop the bay front land as originally planned, and I conclude that the idea of grouping Buckroe with Fort Monroe was a diversionary tactic that was used to mask the real reason for the delay, which is because the people are speaking.

Our citizens must not be misled by trickery. Our citizen’s voices should be heard and their intelligence should not be insulted by misrepresentations of facts. Our citizen’s quality of life should be highly important to our leaders who are elected to look out for their best interest. Our citizen’s should have a say in the disposition of the property that belongs to them at Buckroe.

Therefore, I request that Council continue with the agreement to “tweak” and fine tune the Bay Front Initiative, perhaps by way of a new steering committee, and listen to the people and preserve Lots B as public land to be used by the people and never to be sold to investors for the development of residential properties.

T. Ferraro

by Cecile Trevathan

It has been said that we have misrepresented the city plans for the Bay Front Initiative of the Buckroe Master Plan. I am here to attest to the fact, that while many would have eagerly signed the petition with little explanation; not one person signed a petition in my presence without my careful explanation of which lots were affected. I always carried a map showing lots B and explained that we were not speaking of the Pavilion Park.

Our group has worked diligently to inform the public about the Bay Front Initiative. In fact, in recent discussions with council members we were advised of the renewed interest of investors to purchase private properties as a result of our efforts.

It has been suggested that we are involved in this issue so we can bask in the lime light.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, I’d rather take a beating than to speak publically.

I need only the attention and approval of my friends and family.

We have been criticized for disagreeing with the Bay Front Initiative at the end of the planning process. I believe we all now agree that a flaw in the planning process occurred when the Bay Front Initiative was considered a neighborhood plan rather than a city wide initiative. If the planning process had been better advertised to all Hampton citizens there would surely have been greater involvement earlier in the planning process.

It is true that an enhanced, enlarged city park on lots B, even one which includes revenue producing amenities can not compete with the revenue which housing development would generate. However, an increase in revenue does not justify the development of these last precious near bay front lots. These B lots are paid for. The city will gain additional tax revenue from the sale and development of surrounding properties. Why is it necessary to sell the B lots? What’s the hurry?

In the beginning of this movement, in an effort to define our goal we said we were fighting to save the green space. As our work has evolved, it has become clear that a better definition of our goal is to keep the Public Space Public. We are not asking that the B lots remain just as they are. Our waterfront and near water front property is a finite, we have a responsibility to preserve it for the use and enjoyment of all Hampton citizens.

C. Trevathen