ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, September 22, 1996 TAG: 9609230020
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
COLUMN: guest column
SOURCE: MICHAEL S. ABRAHAM
Call it audacity. Call it gall. Call it chutzpa. I call Elizabeth Obenshain's New River Journal "Preservation must be a community effort" [Aug. 25 Current] a stinging insult to those of us who worked so hard to put the brakes on the "smart" road.
This is an environmental disaster in the making like this area's never seen before. Propagated by Virginia Tech's and [the Virginia Department of Transportation's] strongmen, who ran roughshod through public opinion and statewide agricultural and forestal district policies to achieve their coveted test bed, the smart road effort was aided admirably by Obenshain's Roanoke Times.
Instead of giving a balanced assessment, Obenshain's newspaper:
*Supported the road editorially, justifying its position by the direct link it would provide from Blacksburg to Roanoke - although the smart road's intersection with Interstate 81 is a mere three miles closer to Roanoke than the approved 3A bypass connector.
*Paid mere lip service to the legitimate concerns of and viable alternatives proposed by the opposition. Her article suggests that our arguments often fall on deaf ears. More realistically, The Current allowed opponents an insignificant voice, a whisper in the wind.
*Accepted Virginia Tech's and VDOT's claims without bothering to provide real investigative journalism, or, worse yet, neglected to correct these claims even when proven to be false. For example, the Times quoted VDOT Director Robert Martinez as saying Tech would be kicked out of the national consortium on intelligent highway research if the smart road were not built. When The Current learned that his statement was untrue (in a letter from the director of the consortium saying unequivocally that the smart road was never a condition of Tech's associate membership), it never bothered to inform the public.
With The Roanoke Times' support, our community now seems likely to be saddled with a project that (1) not only slices a county agricultural and forestal district, but renders that state policy impotent, (2) costs state taxpayers tens of millions of unnecessary dollars, and (3) carries significant environmental impact on protected flora, on wetlands and on historical sites, plus visual and noise impact on two lovely valleys, plus potentially devastating flooding to Roanoke should a Fran-size storm hit during the construction phase.
As I see it, there is nothing our community needs that cannot be provided at lower cost by more environmentally sound alternatives.
Even the road's most ardent supporters know it has been very unpopular with the public. That's why, although Obenshain's tenets are right on target, her hypocrisy and sanctimony grate.
Michael S. Abraham
Blacksburg
LENGTH: Medium: 57 linesby CNB