Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 12, 1991 TAG: 9103120382
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOEL TURNER MUNICIPAL WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
That's what City Council said Monday night in refusing to ratify a document the Deyerle residents believed to be a binding agreement on the Peters Creek Road extension project.
Council's decision angered the residents and prompted charges that city officials cannot be trusted because their promises are meaningless.
"That is shameful," said Jonathan Rogers, co-president of the neighborhood group. He said residents may to try to unseat the council members because of the flap.
"If they are not going to honor their promises, I don't think they should be sitting here. Their oaths don't mean anything," Rogers said.
"Quite frankly, you are liars," said Kevin Russell, a neighborhood resident. "You are allowing a city manager to make an agreement . . . arbitrarily. It is disgusting."
Council members refused to comment directly on the controversy because of a pending lawsuit by the neighborhood. That suit is over City Manager Robert Herbert's decision take down a sign that had been one of the traffic-control measures the city agreed to.
But they approved a resolution saying the city can't make binding agreements on the placement of traffic-control measures that affect public safety. Traffic-control measures in areas throughout the city "must be continually evaluated and should be revised . . . as necessary to meet changing public health, safety, welfare and convenience needs" the resolution said.
The neighborhood group says that in return for the residents' backing of the Peters Creek Road project, the city had agreed to put in place a series of traffic-control measures to prevent motorists from cutting through their neighborhood.
Neighborhood residents said they believed council approved the measures last March. That was when Herbert submitted a report on the results of mediation talks dealing with their concerns about the highway extension.
City officials said then that the city, neighborhood and the Virginia Department of Transportation had reached a "consensus agreement" on traffic restrictions during the talks. And the neighborhood group agreed not to oppose the project.
A ban on left turns from Grandin Road Extension onto Mud Lick Road during the morning rush hours was one of several measures agreed to.
Herbert took down the no-left turn sign in December after petitions signed by nearly 300 residents were submitted to council asking that it be be removed. He said the sign was not being obeyed.
Herbert said the rest of the traffic-control plan is in effect. City officials knew the measures were not binding when they were being discussed, he said, but the neighborhood residents apparently assumed they were.
"The whole purpose was to develop a consensus and the consensus remains essentially intact," Herbert said. "There were mutual gains for the neighborhood and the city. The neighborhood got a $7 million widening of Brandon and traffic restrictions at other intersections."
Council members said the neighborhood had put them in an awkward situation by filing a lawsuit over Herbert's decision to take down one sign. If the residents had gone to council instead of court, Counciman Beverly Fitzpatrick Jr. said, council might have been able to resolve the dispute.
The neighborhood group contends that Herbert's decision to take down the sign was a "unilateral breach" of the agreement. It filed a lawsuit to try to block him from removing the sign, but Circuit Judge Roy Willett refused. The judge ruled that no further hearings would be held until the neighborhood group petitioned council to ratify the agreement.
City attorneys argued during the court proceedings that council had never ratified the traffic restrictions because no resolution had ever been adopted on the agreement.
The neighborhood group has obtained affidavits from the mediator and the assistant state attorney general who participated in the mediation talks, stating they believed city officials agreed to the traffic restrictions.
Rogers charged that council is "dodging" the issue by refusing to discuss it because of the pending lawsuit. He said the neighborhood residents were following the judge's order in asking council to ratify the agreement.
"This is Catch-22 and this dodge won't stand," he said. "We went through a lot of sacrifice and we gave up a lot of rights, but we got nothing out of this whole process."
by CNB