Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 16, 1990 TAG: 9005170672
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
One wrinkle was word last week from two Vinton politicians, Del. Richard Cranwell and county Supervisor Harry Nickens, that they oppose the plan.
It would have been nice, of course, if either or both could have put aside parochial considerations and looked instead toward the long-term good of the Roanoke Valley, of which Vinton after all is a part. Still, the surprise would have been if either or both had come out in favor of the plan.
Nickens, though a member of the county's negotiating team, had made no secret of his dislike of consolidation. The most that merger advocates had realistically hoped from Cranwell was silence.
They didn't get silence from Cranwell. But neither did they get the sort of fiercely argued opposition of which Cranwell certainly is capable. In any case, the opposition of Nickens and Cranwell wouldn't by itself doom consolidation.
A second wrinkle was agreement between city and county negotiators that a much bigger area of west county - all of the Catawba Election District now represented by Supervisor Steve McGraw - could vote to become part of Salem, an independent city, rather than the proposed new metropolitan government.
It's understandable that the negotiators would arrive at such an agreement. The problem is: Salem could prove as uninterested in acquiring the land as it is in becoming part of a valleywide government. Much of the territory is the sort of high-cost, low-revenue areas that create problems for local-government finances.
At the least, even if Salem and the county could reach a financial agreement, any such arrangement probably would have to assume a good-faith understanding. Changes in the charter of the proposed new government would require legislative approval, and no General Assembly session is scheduled between now and November.
On the other side of the county, a wrinkle advanced by McGraw and Supervisors Dick Robers and Lee Eddy illustrates the difficulty of trying to satisfy everybody.
Their idea: Allow Vinton - which Merger advocates . . . didn't get silence from Del. Richard Cranwell. But neither did they get the sort of fiercely argued opposition of which Cranwell certainly is capable. under the plan would be a town that's part of the consolidated government, as it is now a town that's part of the county - to annex designated areas in east county only if residents of those areas approve.
Designating annexation-eligible areas in the first place was intended to mollify Vinton qualms about consolidation. In doing so, though, merger negotiators irritated the people who would be annexed. But to mollify them, by requiring their vote of approval, could be to un-mollify Vinton.
The frustrating aspect of all this is that it has very little to do with the merger itself. If th merger fails, Vinton still would have the power to annex the land without a vote of the prospective annexees.
Meanwhile, merger advocates are gearing up for a campaign that will stress the economic benefits of consolidation.
Even here, dangers lurk - including the possibility of overselling the product by presenting merger as a panacea for all ills.
Some voters likely would see through such a claim - and dismiss consolidation advocates as overwrought.
Other voters might believe the claim - and worry that consolidation would turn Roanoke into another Atlanta or Charlotte.
The stress should be on a more reasonable claim: that consolidation would save valley taxpayers a few bucks and would help give the valley more control over its own destiny.
by CNB