ROANOKE TIMES 

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

DATE: SUNDAY, February 17, 1991                   TAG: 9102150042
SECTION: CURRENT                    PAGE: NRV-2   EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

PLAN FOR APARTMENTS TRAMPLES CITIZEN RIGHTS

We are bewildered and dismayed by the prospect of having large apartment buildings constructed in what little green space is left near the center of Blacksburg. We are told the property is worth a lot of money and the developer is within his rights to fill it to the maximum with rental units. This he intends to do - building 24 four-bedroom units. We are told that it is unfortunate that the property is zoned so that it can be used in this manner. We are also aware that Blacksburg has an abundance of student rental apartments.

We are aware of a considerable amount of citizen outrage at the planned use for this land. How so? Don't average citizens who call Blacksburg their home, are proud of it as a special place to live . . . have anything better to do than question the rights of a developer? Many citizens spend a full workday at tasks of service to the community. After their workday, some of them have nothing better to do than to rant and rave at plans innovative developers have come up with that are within their rights. That is one view.

We believe, however, there are other reasons why individuals might question the rights of developers to exercise the maximum that the zoning ordinance (which is out of date) allows. Among these:

> The Thomas-Conner house is historic, stately and stands in an open setting appealing to many who view it.

The fragile residential neighborhood may be irreversibly damaged from the 24 units potentially filled with 96 students and their guests, plus occupants who will live in the original home. It is little [consolation] that years ago when the town was rezoned a mistake was made. No matter! The developer has the rights, not the neighbors!

Parking is of concern and will become difficult in the surrounding areas.

Traffic is another concern. Wall Street is nothing more than a one-way paved alley barely suitable for neighborhood use. Should the possible 96-plus automobiles from the Thomas-Conner neighborhood become a reality, the developer will again have exercised his rights while citizens may receive the bill to bring the road up to specifications. The cost will be in dollars and in the loss of open space - perhaps the neighbors' front yards.

Finally, if we already have an abundance of student apartments, then if more are built, someone else will lose out. What about other developers' rights? Perhaps we should resign ourselves to the fact that the marketplace will determine the outcome.

We acknowledge that developers have rights, but contend that average citizens do, too. We have concerns over the value of our neighbors' property, the quality of their lives, and the public costs of accommodation after problems arise. Is it necessary that the Thomas-Conner property be developed to the maximum? Is there no sense of fairness, responsibility and compromise? Or are phrases such as "developers rights," "maximizing profits" and "nothing can be done" all that we are left with?" It is time to stop, to consider, and give some regard to community pride and well-being. Many people with no monetary stake whatsoever in the property are working hard to preserve its present character. We hope a satisfactory solution will be realized.\ Donald Mullins, June Mullins, Sally Pfeiffer, Douglas Pfeiffer, Robert Olin, Mary Ross, Roderick Young, Glen Hetzel and\ Mary Rhoades\ Blacksburg 


 by CNB