Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 7, 1994 TAG: 9405090113
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By LEE B. EDDY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Staff writer Lon Wagner reported (```Whad'Ya Know' host tries Roanoke jokes'') that, on a national radio broadcast originating from Roanoke, Mayor David Bowers told host Michael Feldman there'd be peace in Bosnia before we see it in the Roanoke Valley. Although some may view that as a harmless attempt at humor, it's the kind of expression that sticks in the mind. Hearing the program, someone with current or future ideas of moving here with his or her family or business could decide otherwise due to a thoughtless comment made by a public official. I fault local sponsors who suggested it to Feldman as a basis for local-flavor humor, as well as the good mayor for poor judgment.
Margie Fisher's column (``Bowers refuses to shun `the shun words''') concerning Mayor Bowers' refusal to give up on the `shun' words, annexation and consolidation, was equally disturbing. None of the 1994 general-election candidates seeking Roanoke City Council seats has made either annexation or consolidation a campaign issue. In fact, most have stressed regional cooperation. I believe a preponderance of those living here want local governments to provide a good level of public services at a reasonable cost and to work with the community to maintain a high quality of life. Those beating the drum for annexation-consolidation appear to be limited to this newspaper, some aggressive business leaders and a few hard-line politicians.
I still have vivid and highly negative memories of serving on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during the late '60s and early '70s, when this valley's annexation wars were at their peak. The board and staff spent most of the time planning annexation-defense strategy. Thousands of dollars were spent on lawyers, accountants and engineers to make the best presentation in court. It was impossible to plan well for future county facilities such as schools, parks, libraries and fire stations because we didn't know whether a particular service area would even be in the county a year hence. Relations among local governments were virulent. I believe these are reasons Del. Richard Cranwell pushed for a prohibition on annexation in the Roanoke Valley and elsewhere in Virginia. I don't want the county and its citizens to return to the rat-hole expenses, planless government and animosities of annexation days.
What advantages do pro-consolidationists expect to see if the city and county governments did merge? One city surrounding another (Salem) seems absurd on its face. Dividing the county between Salem and Roanoke wouldn't appear to accomplish the objective wished for. I don't see Roanoke County as being a particularly attractive investment for a city interested in expansion. We have relatively little industry compared to Salem and Roanoke. We do have lots of rural areas, whose residents are demanding a higher level of services, and it's clear the unit cost of serving a rural resident is considerably higher than for an urban one. We've undertaken the $75 million Spring Hollow water project to benefit the valley's future, but are financing it solely from county tax funds and water-user fees. Even with the city's current upgrade of its water facilities, cost per unit of county water is much higher than the city's, as any new county resident will tell you. That cost burden cannot look very attractive to a city contemplating consolidation or annexation.
Those favoring consolidation seem to have two primary motives: promote more rapid economic growth and spread the cost of providing social services for the underprivileged who tend to congregate in central cities. Both are specious goals. This valley is never going to be a late-blooming Charlotte or Greensboro due to our mountainous terrain. Furthermore, many citizens prefer a pace of slow and steady growth.
Does anyone think that, if the city and county consolidate tomorrow, there'd be a significant change in the geographic location of the underprivileged of our population, or in their financial needs? Roanoke now receives substantial funding from federal and state sources due to its inner-city population. Total funds received by a consolidated government would likely be less because the percentage of disadvantaged would be much lower than in the current city. An example of that disparity was made clear to Roanoke County when the 1994 General Assembly juggled the school-funding formula for fiscal year 1994-'95. Thanks to new state funds, Roanoke schools will likely get everything they asked from City Council, where county schools will probably operate on a bare-bones maintenance budget that's $800,000 less than their request to the Board of Supervisors. Even at that pared-down rate, fiscal year 1994-'95 funds for county schools from local tax sources will be more than 9 percent greater than in the preceding year.
I thought the 1990 consolidation vote and prevailing attitude in the General Assembly would have made the consolidation-annexation issues moot in the valley for a few years at least. However, some seem unable to recognize reality and will continue to damage the Roanoke Valley's image by repeated attempts to tell the world how terrible it is that we have four local governments when we could gain the ``advantages'' of consolidating into three.
Lee B. Eddy is chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors.
by CNB