THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 15, 1995 TAG: 9510140121
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: Medium: 70 lines
A word of encouragement for downtown Suffolk merchants who fear the loss of on-street parking in front of their businesses will drive away customers:
If the shoppers have remained loyal despite years of showers of chicken feathers and blasts of hog you-know-what odors, it seems unlikely that what could be a temporary nuisance will be the straw to break the camel's back.
I know we're talking about elderly, sometimes frail, people, but I also believe the issue may loom larger in the eyes of some merchants than in the minds of the shoppers.
Here's what's happened: In preparation for construction of a $14 million courthouse complex at Main and Bank streets, the city has removed on-street parking from Main Street, enabling four lanes of traffic, and moved a loading area from the front of Suffolk Towers to the front of The Virginian-Pilot.
Despite all the newly installed no-parking signs, city traffic officials say drivers may still pull onto the side of the street for quick dropoffs and deliveries; they just can't park there.
Yes, say critics, and that creates an accident in waiting. They may be right. And if they are, the city clearly will have to find alternatives.
The best element of this plan may be a new routing to eliminate truck traffic from downtown. Without 18-wheelers barreling through and without vehicles lining Main Street, it should be much easier to navigate.
The conflict between the merchants and City Hall, I'm convinced, is not so much what is being done as the merchants' perceptions of how it's being done.
The mayor, among others, says downtown officials have been kept informed all along of the city's plan. No, say some merchants, it was all a surprise; instead of seeking our input and working it into the plan, the city took the usual path of saying `this is the way it is going to be' and proceeding omnisciently.
That, it seems to me, is largely the way the city has undertaken this entire courthouse project - as if the only worthwhile ideas were city staffers' and the very limited number of people whose input they sought. It's an old way of doing city business that flies in the face of citizen consensus.
I don't know how much brainstorming went into the on-street-parking changes, but I certainly know that merchants, their customers and their suppliers should have a say that is truly heard and heeded.
With proper presentation - not simply a published handout telling merchants that changes begin in short order - the parking modifications could have been made with far less aggravation than they've caused.
That is, if the city staffers had regarded the merchants and property owners as customers instead of serfs.
The courthouse is needed badly, and the City Council acted properly in placing it downtown as part of a renewal effort. With other improvements sure to follow, downtown merchants and property owners have more hope now than at any time in recent years.
Still, some of them are apprehensive. They wonder if they can hold on until the courthouse and other renewal projects bring them more potential customers. The city's handling of on-street parking only makes them more nervous.
What must become clear is that downtown revitalization is a partnership.
It isn't a matter of the city's planning improvements, then telling the affected people about them. It's a matter of working together, capitalizing on the pride of ownership.
As long-dreamed projects come to reality, the city must resolve to be a much better partner than it has been in this matter of on-street parking. MEMO: Have your say: 934-7553. by CNB