George,

As someone who has no position on the merits of the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway, it may seem strange that I wish to offer some comments on the project. But while I have no views on whether or not the Parkway is a good idea, I do have serious concerns about the process by which the proposal may become a reality. My view is that approving the Parkway by anything less than a 4/5's majority of City Council would be a disregard of one of the principles of the Virginia Constitution. I find that to be a very troubling prospect not just for the particular provision at issue, but as a precedent for interpreting other constitutional provisions.

Constitutions mean more than statutes or ordinances. In addition to being the law, constitutional provisions are statements of fundamental principles about individual rights and how we are to be governed. Under a constitutional system, how we achieve something is often just as important as what we achieve.

A provision of our state constitution requires any sale of city park property to be approved not by a simple majority, but by a 3/4's majority. This provision was not put in the constitution to be a logistical hoop for city council to jump through; it is a statement of principle about the importance of a park to a city's residents. In essence, the provision states that the value of a park is so great, it requires more than 51% of the city's residents (or their elected representatives) to take away any part of the park from the minority of residents who do not want the property sold. Although a 3/4's majority has the same effect on a minority of residents, the constitutional requirement of a supermajority goes a long way to insuring that the importance of the use of the property as a park is given proper consideration in any decision to sell the property. In other words, as a means to insure that changing the use of the property is really in the best interest of the community as a whole, the constitution requires that a greater percentage of the community be convinced of that fact.

It is true that the state constitution also allows for conveyances of easements by a simple majority. But it is clear that the drafters of this provision were not contemplating easements such as that required for the Meadowcreek Parkway. Let's not kid ourselves, the construction of the Parkway on park property would alter the use of that part of the property to such an extent it would be the functional equivalent of a sale. Even if the current proposal for the location of the Meadowcreek Parkway is the best possible plan, to implement it by means of granting an easement to VDOT would effectively nullify the requirement of a supermajority for sales of park property. In the future, anytime a 3/4's majority cannot be convinced that the sale of park property is in the best interest of the community, the functional equivalent of a sale can be achieved by merely labeling it as an easement. In making its decision on the Meadowcreek Parkway, I urge City Council to consider that the impact of this or any other constitutional provision should not be determined by mere wordplay, but rather the larger principles on which constitutions are drafted.

Josh Wheeler (electronic mail, December 18, 2003)

See also, Parkway Method Meeting's Main Concern.