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

DATE: SUNDAY, June 23, 1990                   TAG: 9006260396
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: C-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

HOW BEDFORD LANDFILL SITE WAS CHOSEN

THE JUNE 13 editorial concerning the Bedford landfill makes a case based on half-truths and omitted facts. Briefly, the costs stated follow a development formula that neglects substantial purchase price savings on the chosen Route 43 site.

Another matter the article overlooked was the county comprehensive plan's mandate to protect farmland wherever possible. The rejected site has many acres under cultivation, while the adopted site has only two open fields, both unused.

Those who attended the public hearing preceding the choice recall that Chairman A.A. Saarnijoki reported the board would factor in a "human element" with the technical advice on site selection. This dichotomy would form the decision's criteria.

The human element that led to rejection of site 1 involved residential dwellings, a narrow dangerous road to the spot, and the concentration of school buses from the large Staunton River complex. These factors, not the preponderance of squawks at the hearing, dictated the placement of the landfill in District 3 rather than 2. Further evidence of this is found in the concurring voice of the five supervisors unaffected by voters in these districts.

I concur in the board's reasoning. Better to have it in "my backyard" - the district where I live and serve as planning commissioner - than the other location, where I would watch my students dodge mobile dumpsters every day. GLENN M. AYERS BEDFORD COUNTY

by CNB