What about Chatham?

By Published by The Editorial Board

Published: June 27, 2008

What about Chatham?

To the editor:

I request this opportunity to renew consideration of your editorial, “North vs. South,” (June 15, page B8) that expressed comments about Pittsylvania County’s attention to its “southern end” that will eventually help “all corners of Virginia’s largest county — including Chatham.”

Your “consensus view” appears an exact opposite opinion that this newspaper has championed over the years to explain the needs of Southern Virginia and the reasons why state benefits should not disproportionally go to satisfy the demands of highly populated, successful areas such as in Northern Virginia.

Why would you now reserve estimations when considering our county’s government, coupled with encouragement to accept continuing and concerted efforts within selected magisterial districts in the county’s southern end? What is the difference between regional intent/actions by elected representatives of the commonwealth of Virginia and those locally elected for Pittsylvania County?

Also in this attempt to express other concerns and explain different viewpoints, I respond to your seven evaluations that emphasized Chatham:

 

• Tax dollars from economic development projects (some in conjunction with Danville) “will be spent for the entire county,” and of course, dollars were spent from both the county’s and the city’s economic development offices to gain these benefits. But neither fact addresses that supervisors continue to encourage and specify southern locations and projects;

• Pittsylvania County’s Department of Social Services was removed from Chatham’s corporate limits to undeveloped land to the south of town almost a decade ago, in spite of available (and cheaper) land within the town and in spite of Chatham’s protests. Costs for erecting that new building would have been similar;

• You mention the “same” renovation for all high schools but disparity in student populations. It is interesting to note this year that Chatham High School had more graduates than Tunstall High School;

• Selecting citizens from each magisterial district by the Board of Supervisors should be a requirement for any advisory committee in the county, and county-wide considerations are needed for “organized recreation.” Of course, some sports activities have been accommodated at a Mount Hermon site as well as the vacated school at Blairs, leased from the county for $1 per year;

• Revamping schools (which was done at Brosville) is a sensitive subject when all public schools have been relocated outside of Chatham. Among our county’s three towns, Chatham is the only one without a county school in its corporate limits. It began in the mid-1900s when the old Chatham High School was converted into an Educational and Cultural Center, with office space. Also, a new building was adjacently located for Pittsylvania County Schools’ central office, actions directed by former supervisors.

  Five years is too long not to reuse the old Chatham Elementary School, a worthy Main Street building, when our county requires more office space. If many public services are transferred to this convenient site (of easy access, existing parking, ample space for new offices and meeting rooms), it would provide reuse of the Moses Building (and ultimately jail cells at the courthouse). The estimate was more than $5 million for both buildings. Already the Voter Registrar’s office has been transferred to the old library at the same site.

  Fortunately, the state assisted with costs of the Social Services building, but such assistance is not available for the site of county government.

  There is a possible exception to help county expenditures, if money is procured through the Department of Historic Resources to help renovate the former elementary school in Chatham’s designated historic district. Renovation at the existing seat of government should be preferred and would be prudent when compared to the added expenses of securing a new location outside of Chatham. And after all, town residents pay county taxes, too.

  Relocating the county seat is not an idle threat with the report of a supervisor’s question about land available south of town. Additionally, envisioning county action to move agricultural agencies, such as the FSA, to the new Farm Bureau facility outside of town forecasts and intensifies residents’ concerns;

• Any governing body should avail itself of information before a new process is considered for possible enactment. Our locality is challenged to address the uniqueness of uranium and understanding could come from a study, so supervisors’ support may not be just resisting “intense public pressure”; and

• You stated the county helped Green Rock Correctional Center receive water and sewer service. This project established new buildings and enlarged an existing correctional facility that has a Chatham mailing address.  This “economic development” effort by the county required adaptation and enlargement of the town’s water facilities, and now town water rates will increase to pay the Pittsylvania County Service Authority (which began in 1973 with utilization of Chatham’s existing water system).

I agree that county functions should be considered as “one voice” for benefits in geographical boundaries, and that the independent city of Danville and the county of Pittsylvania have partnered for additional benefits at its southern end. But my final observation as a Chatham resident is to comment: Your editorial hardly explained yet another 4-3 vote against the county seat by Pittsylvania’s supervisors.

MARY CATHERINE PLASTER

Chatham