THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 15, 1995 TAG: 9501130238
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: Medium: 72 lines
The Suffolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority's decision to leave its downtown location illustrates three troubling trends:
Aloofness toward the people the agency serves.
Disregard for its role as a redevelopment leader.
Determination to function independently, rather than as a component of a total city operation.
What, except aloofness, explains a move from a city-operated building that houses other agencies serving some of the same citizens as SRHA, to a location on the fringes of downtown?
Its clients may be needy, but that does not place consideration for them secondary to the wishes of SRHA workers. The workers may need more space, but SRHA clients need convenience too.
Some may not have automobiles or access to free transportation, so one-stop access to related services is a tremendous help. For many, particularly those housed in the inner city, getting to the building formerly occupied by Paul D. Camp Community College will be much more a challenge than getting to a building across from City Hall.
Instead of moving the entire operation at a cost of $400,000, perhaps the SRHA could have relocated some of its functions to agency-operated housing units or community facilities.
Despite having ``redevelopment'' in its name, SRHA does little to demonstrate its commitment to that role. Downtown redevelopment finally has become a priority of the City Council. Why doesn't SRHA get on board?
SRHA leaders say they looked downtown for a suitable relocation site. Really? Was it a simple matter of contacting a real estate agent, or was it a genuine effort?
I have no doubt that, with proper effort, the agency could have gotten a list of potential sites. The properties might not have been ready to move into, or they might not even have been buildings. But there are downtown locations, there likely are willing sellers, and I bet there are even those willing to build to suit their tenants.
The former Suffolk High School comes immediately to mind. It would have been adequate for the agency, with space to spare - and perhaps space to rent to other public or private groups.
Sure the building would require major repairs, but if the Redevelopment and Housing Authority is not in the business of rehabilitating Suffolk landmarks, how can it expect anyone else to do it?
By the way, it's not too late. Even with a contract on its new location, there is nothing to keep SRHA from being the leader in Suffolk High's renovation, then managing it and renting it to suitable tenants.
That would demonstrate to Suffolk residents that what is now predominantly a housing authority is ready to enter the rehabilitation business as well.
SRHA's explanation that it looked downtown and found nothing suitable doesn't wash. If downtown's long-awaited upturn is to gain momentum, the area needs ``people generators'' like the SRHA. It's sad that SRHA turned its back.
Finally, the SRHA was wrong to seal the property deal without first formally notifying the City Council of its intentions. While the authority is an independent agency, its board members are appointed by the City Council, and interest in its location is not confined to SRHA.
A number of agencies and organizations, including the city's Planning Department and the Downtown Suffolk Association, could have helped the authority conduct a thorough evaluation of downtown sites - if they'd been asked. A number of private owners likely would have worked with SRHA - if they'd been asked.
If downtown revitalization is to come about, coordination is a key ingredient. If service to citizens is the priority, aloofness has no role. by CNB