THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, May 26, 1996 TAG: 9605240238
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: John Pruitt
LENGTH: 68 lines
Listening to some of the people who oppose the Youth Entertainment Studios' request for a small part of the former Radio Transmitting Facility, you'd think YES planned to recruit terrorists to seize control of Driver and heaven only knows what else.
YES wants 35 acres of the surplus land, compared to 208 acres requested for a wildlife refuge, 150 acres for an Old Dominion University environmental center, 141 acres for a city park and 63 acres for Little League use.
And on that land, YES wants to run its media program for at-risk youths. Instead of continued failure and the myriad problems that come with losing self-esteem, YES students would get the opportunity to put their creative energies into movie production and other outlets.
As educators can attest, many a student who found only failure in traditional school settings has tasted sweet success in activities harnessing their creativity. And instead of criminally reflecting their frustration, as they seemed headed, the students learned responsibility - and that improved everything, including school performance.
I bet some people in the shadow of the facilities' antennae share that experience. Yet some recoil when they hear that at-risk students would be brought to Suffolk to participate in the YES program.
Maybe it's just the term. At-risk doesn't mean the kids are troublemakers; some of the nicest kids you'll ever know - probably including players in the Little League that wants nearly twice the land that YES is asking - are at risk of failure.
It's a heck of a lot more sensible to change their paths, through organizations such as YES, than for taxpayers to shoulder the costs later of everything from incarceration to welfare for adults who have no job skills.
It won't do to agree, then add, ``not in my back yard.'' I'm fully in favor of questioning YES about what it plans to do. But it seems to me a lot of the questions continue because the inquisitors just don't like the answers.
Some of those issues:
It's Suffolk land; why should YES, instead of a Suffolk-based organization, get control? For one thing, no Suffolk organization offered a proposal to the Department of Education, which was among agencies that could apply for the land, despite an open invitation.
Anyhow, what's that got to do with the quality of the program? YES officials say it will be open to Suffolk and other Hampton Roads students; that's good enough.
The school - which eventually could include dorms - is incompatible with the other uses.
Hey, we're talking about a facility behind the Little League's 63 acres. How much traffic, trash and noise do they believe the ball fields will generate in comparison to YES?
I'm sure the levels will be tolerable - and I certainly favor fields for the city's ballplayers - but it's hard to believe YES can't be equally as compatible at Driver.
Public land shouldn't go to a private user.
Does that argument apply to the Bennett's Creek Little League or just YES?
YES is tied to Regent University, which is a private school, and Regent is tied to Pat Robertson.
So that's to keep YES from getting the Suffolk site? What has Regent ever done to indicate that it, as partner of YES, would not be a good citizen of Suffolk?
And so what if Pat Robertson is so indirectly involved? If his successes in other ventures are any indication, YES surely would flourish.
Instead of being vilified, YES should be praised for reaching out to students who obviously stump the educational system. Its program is no less an investment in our future than a Little League field, and it should get no cooler a reception. by CNB