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

DATE: MONDAY, August 9, 1993                   TAG: 9309100371
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

FILL EMPTY BUILDINGS FIRST

THE CURRENT situation regarding rezoning of the Cotton Hill area has been painted by developers as a not-in-my-backyard picture. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we as residents of the area surrounding the Blue Ridge Parkway feel is ``not in f+ianyone'so backyard.''

The developers wish to build, in their words, ``affordable housing.'' That means $100,000 to $200,000 homes. Affordable for whom? Is building six houses per acre truly necessary to ensure proper growth of the Roanoke Valley economy, or just growth of the developers' bankbooks?

The developers have stated repeatedly that we need to build houses for both the executives and the people who will relocate to the area. If the developers are truly interested in our economy, they should concentrate on providing jobs and training for the thousands of unemployed we already have, instead of encouraging additional businesses to move in out-of-town work forces.

And what about the many vacant buildings that Roanoke is peppered with? Downtown is filled with vacant blocks, and there are vacant office buildings throughout the county and city. To build out, instead of improving on what we already have, is wasteful.

Finally, the developers wish to build up the area around the Blue Ridge Parkway, and they state that leaving a line of trees is sufficient to preserve the character of this national treasure. The National Park Service disagrees, and yet the county Planning Commission continues to consider the developers' request. The wildlife in our area wouldn't survive the onslaught.

We need to preserve Roanoke as best we can. There aren't many places like it left.

KEVIN COOK

ROANOKE

\ Barbarism gets court's protection ON JUNE 27, the Roanoke Times & World-News printed a startling photograph of a man kneeling in prayer, one hand over his eyes, the other on a black ram. In the foreground are two bowls, one filled with blood, the other with animal organs. Celebrating the decision of the United States Supreme Court that the rite of animal sacrifice is protected as ``freedom of religion,'' the man slashed the throats of 15 animals to honor four gods.

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court legalized infanticide if carried out inside the mother's body. Both the practice of infanticide to control population and the rites of animal and human sacrifice to propitiate gods are ancient practices. Those who find these practices abhorrent today often find themselves vilified as religious extremists and sentimentalists. However, Western civilization had long ago banned such sacrifices. In an effort to be modern, we sink back into barbarism.

Perhaps the Supreme Court reasoned that since animals are legally slaughtered for food and sport, and since the Constitution grants freedom of religion, animal sacrifice is constitutional. I don't know what reasoning justified infanticide.

CAROLINE P. CHERMSIDE

BLACKSBURG

\ Navy's jets also pose threat

REGARDING the July 28 news article by staff writer Leigh Allen, ``Navy says power line could endanger fliers'':

While I am opposed to Appalachian Power Co.`s power line on esthetic and environmental grounds, I am just as opposed to the Navy's low-level, supersonic flights over Blacksburg and over Smith Mountain Lake. Aside from the sudden, scary noise created by these jets, they fly at altitudes where I and my fellow sport- aviators practice.

These flights are unannounced and are over regions not designated as military operations areas on airmen's flight maps. The practice is extremely dangerous, and it is surprising that so far no collisions have occurred between general aviation and Navy aircraft.

ROBERT A. HELLER

BLACKSBURG

by CNB