DATE: Sunday, June 1, 1997                  TAG: 9705290015
SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J4   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Letters 

                                            LENGTH:  144 lines

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT

NORFOLK

Cutbacks to take toll on disabled

The May 20 article, ``Norfolk to end monthly aid programs for disabled adults,'' was interesting in the things it didn't say.

Noel Finney and John Kowanack of the Department of Social Services were less than forthcoming with facts and figures of what it will mean to the people who are now receiving general-relief benefits. Saying they will be referred to other agencies, then naming only one place of referral, is telling in itself.

The agency mentioned, Norfolk Substance Abuse Services, offers only three days of in-house services at a charge of $12.75, dependent upon availability of bed space. Detox does not provide prescription medication. Long-term services for substance abuse have even longer waiting lists.

Dropping the program means no medication for those disabilities mentioned by Mr. Finney. No meds to relieve the pain of a herniated disc, or to bring hypertension under control, or to stabilize diabetes. No anti-depressant for the person suffering from depression. No meds for those with alcoholic seizures or other problems as a result of alcoholism.

We do know that $122 plus the maximum $50 for medication certainly will not secure a place to live if the disability makes it impossible for one to be employed.

At the cost of human pain and suffering, the Department of Social Services is going to save $100,000 a year.

Alice E. Taylor

Director of ministries

St. Columba Ecumenical Ministries

Norfolk, May 22, 1997

CUTBACKS

A new slogan for a heartless state

Suggestion for a new state slogan: Virginia Is For Tough Lovers.

Kicking seriously ill people off general relief/medical assistance is the true reflection of the level of compassion of our commonwealth and city.

Get a grip, folks. What desperation do you wish to drive these people to by your punitive actions?

Marylin Copeland

Norfolk, May 20, 1997

VIRGINIA BEACH

Project threatens city's Green Line

Count yourselves among those who do not understand the Green Line (editorial ``Cautious growth,'' May 20). The Green Line is part of Virginia Beach's Comprehensive Plan and does more than mark the location of city utilities. It limits residential sprawl - the kind of growth the city cannot afford.

Currently, there is no infrastructure to support residential development south of the Green Line. The city will need to install water, sewer, sanitation, improved roads, firefighting facilities, more police protection, schools and a myriad of other services not already present. Contrary to the premise stated in ``Cautious growth,'' this will surely increase the tax burden on the rest of us.

The Lake Ridge subdivision is not comparable to this proposal. It is located in Transition Area I, which, under certain tax-favorable conditions, allows residential development. Sandy Hill Farm is in Transition Area III, which was intended for agriculture, recreational and open-space land uses. Sandy Hill Farm not only violates the integrity of the Green Line, it violates the integrity of Transition Area III.

Because of the dangerous precedent this proposal will set, approving the Sandy Hill Farm proposal is tantamount to moving the Green Line. The city's own policy outlined in the Comprehensive Plan provides the criteria for such action:

``Retain the location and role of the Green Line, . . . until there exists sound and defensible reasons, based on land use, fiscal and public facility adequacy tests, that warrant considerations to move it.''

There are no ``sound and defensible reasons'' to approve this proposal.

John A. Robusto

Virginia Beach, May 20, 1997

Let's not tamper with the Green Line

The lead article in the May 15 Hampton Roads section, ``Rezoning could threaten Green Line,'' provided a most valuable contribution to the citizens of Virginia Beach.

The Planning Commission's decision to support rezoning agricultural land south of the Green Line to residential use raises fundamental questions impacting on the future of the city and the quality of life of its residents.

The proposed rezoning will, in effect, subvert the city's Comprehensive Plan, nullify the Green Line through piecemeal residential development and greatly affect the future of the city. Tom Holden's article does a real public service by bringing this issue to the attention of the community.

It was quite surprising to me to read the May 20 editorial, ``Cautious growth,'' which supports the decision of the Planning Commission, since neither the commission nor the editorial provides any real reasons why the Green Line philosophy should be ignored at this time. Over time, we can certainly expect modifications, but this change is very much premature.

Clifford Hopkins

Virginia Beach, May 20, 1997

CULTURES

There's a limit to Chinese sharing

I am Chinese, from the rural area of Hong Kong. An article in the May 16 Daily Break (``In Chinese culture, it is important to share'') said, ``Chinese people show their cultural emphasis on sharing everything . . . this may be why the Chinese outlasted practically everyone on earth in the communist experiment.''

The Chinese communist experiment really has nothing to do with ``sharing'' or Chinese culture. The headaches we have in Communist China are no fewer than those in the Soviet Union.

Also, the article said that Chinese do not use serving chopsticks. That is not always true. Most people in my place (yes, even in the rural area) do use serving spoons or chopsticks at home. They certainly use serving spoons when they have a guest. Especially when Chinese people are dining in restaurants, you could be assertively reminded by your friends if you did not use the serving spoons.

Yes, we share lots of things, but we certainly do not want to share saliva.

Siu-Yu Wong

Norfolk, May 16, 1997

ALLIANCES

Don't brush off NATO so quickly

Clinton's slow and indecisive foreign policy on NATO's expansion is not something to be applauded, but neither is bad journalism that clouds and confuses the issues. The May 20 column by Thomas Friedman, ``NATO expansion deal begins to look like Whitewater,'' is a case in point.

His column does not deal with the history of the region, which is important. The small nations of Central and Eastern Europe were the victims of Russian and Soviet imperialism for centuries; their people were systematically murdered and their lands plundered and destroyed. After WWII the Soviet Union imposed communism on Poland and Czechoslovakia, and every effort by those countries to regain their sovereignty was met by Soviet military intervention. Despite the collapse of communism in 1989, the threat to the security of Central and Eastern Europe has not diminished.

Friedman does not deal honestly with the question of cost as well. For one, he does not provide any figures nor does he compare them with the costs of the continuous U.S. military presence in countries like Korea and Japan. The cost of NATO expansion has also to be judged against the benefits that are potentially great but difficult to quantify in monetary terms. How much value in dollars do we put on freedom, peace and stability in the world?

The tremendous strength of NATO's forces is the only deterrent to any serious threat by expansionist powers. To suggest, as Friedman does, that the Partnership for Peace is a substitute for NATO is irresponsible and ignorant. One has only to look at UN forces in Bosnia and their inability to ``keep'' peace to understand the fallacy of half measures when it comes to the issue of war and peace.

Gregory Lukasik

Virginia Beach, May 20, 1997

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu