Now it's time for the city's governing body to follow suit and make the same correct decision.

Opponents to the project during the lengthy public hearing offered no plausible arguments the proposal would undermine their lifestyle or property values in a subdivision meant to provide a mix of uses and provide residential opportunities for those not ready for home ownership.

Their arguments were essentially designed to denigrate renters, show a not in my backyard mentality and block the efforts of a developer who plans to make a more than $10 million investment in the community.

MaSuki has gone to great lengths to adjust its proposal to something city council and the residents in the Villages at Cross Creek community can live with.

Before the public hearing opened, planning board Chairman Gregory Browning talked about the need for a project such as this, explaining there are people who commute to Roanoke Rapids from Rocky Mount because these types of apartment complexes are more prevalent there than here.

Mayor Emery Doughtie also noted the need for something like the MaSuki project. “It's a lot harder to buy a house now,” he said. “We are neighbors and we are trying to grow our city and grow our revenues.”

Cody Fortier, a Navy veteran and a deputy with the Halifax County Sheriff's Office, told the two boards of his struggle to find adequate housing when he got out of school.

There is an established need for this kind of property in Roanoke Rapids and while not an instant fix to the economic woes in the Roanoke Valley, it is part of the puzzle which could aid in our rebound along with the constant work going on behind the scenes to bring new business and industry here.

It was clear from Thursday's public hearing this project is not one which will undermine the relative tranquility the residents in Cross Creek enjoy. There was no evidence presented showing this apartment complex will injure property values as the property it adjoins is already owned by MaSuki.

The only thing which stands in the way of this project being approved when it lands in council's lap on May 3 is if the city's governing panel buys into the irrational fears of a few property owners who believe the proposal is not what it seems to be.

The proposal, even in its larger form, has never deviated from its main objective — to provide market-value housing to an area which needs an infusion to its tax base and needs to provide a wider range of options to those looking for housing.

The planning board saw that Thursday night. We hope city council sees that on May 3 — Editor