ROANOKE TIMES

                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, April 4, 1990                   TAG: 9004040610
SECTION: A-12 EDITORIAL                    PAGE:    EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium


COUNTY RESIDENTS OPPOSING MERGER LIKE THEIR LIFESTYLE

THE EDITORIAL March 19, "Changes in merger plan? Why not?" prompted me to write in an attempt to clarify my reasons for resistance to consolidation that you describe as "elusive."

For me, the reason is not racial in nature and, quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing that charge. I do not appreciate being put on the defensive regarding a "non-issue," but every time I hear that charge (usually from a city resident and most often from your editorial page and even on occasion your news page), I feel I must address it in some way.

If my response sounds "superficial," perhaps it's because the charge is superficial. I don't know how to say it any clearer - the city blacks, or any blacks for that matter, have nothing to do with my hesitation regarding consolidation.

The expense of the Roanoke Metropolitan Government is not the real reason I intend to vote against consolidation, though the expense would be a good enough reason. I don't know why the state (as you suggest) would feel an obligation to pay for one area to consolidate, and I would resent their involvement, really. We can either afford it locally or we can't. Many of the costs that you tag as "one-time expenses" are really continuing costs that may not be offset by attrition.

I am concerned about the attendance lines but realize the truth of your argument that we have no guarantees in that regard whether or not we consolidate. No, that's not my issue either.

I do like the sounds of cooperation - though I know the difficult history that you allude to. And perhaps we are finally getting to the crux of my opposition. Historically, whenever Roanoke County and Roanoke City have entered into "cooperation," the city has retained an edge - an "unfair advantage."

I guess the county residents' opposition to consolidation is just an endorsement of the lifestyle they currently enjoy and an indictment of city politics. Is that too simple for your paper to report? This newspaper is slanted to the "virtues" of the city and makes no effort to show the county in a positive light.

You are right about one thing. At this point, no amount of changes to any consolidation plan would ensure my vote; however, if the city would like to give up its charter and become a part of the county, I would not fight as hard. I do hope that if consolidation fails - and I will do my share to bring about its defeat - something positive will come from the process and whatever areas we have determined need improvement on either side can be addressed. Let's get our own houses in order before we plan to expand. P.M. PERDUE ROANOKE COUNTY



 by CNB