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

DATE: TUESDAY, October 11, 1994                   TAG: 9410120048
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-6   EDITION: METRO  
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A ROCKY ROAD WORTH TAKING

ROANOKE COUNTY officials are picking their way carefully along a path toward exercising needed control over growth. They are gingerly skirting the crags and outcroppings of dearly held property rights, toward a future that might preserve some of the natural face of the valley and surrounding mountains.

Whether they'll ever get there is anyone's guess.

It is only prudent, of course, to take care in walking this trail. Property rights are sacred ground in Virginia, and growth is very much needed in the region. Yet walk this trail the county leaders must, if there is to be a Roanoke Valley as loved for its beauty and livability by generations to come as it is by those who enjoy it today.

Certainly, preserving the valley's defining features while making way for inevitable growth will require more agility and endurance than have been shown so far. County supervisors have given only halfhearted endorsement, for example, simply to studying ridgeline protection for the surrounding mountains. And studying is far from being prepared to take action. "We just can't go around jerking land away from people for the good of all the world without compensation," Supervisor Fuzzy Minnix complains.

True enough. But who's talking about jerking land away without compensation? Restricting future uses to avoid damaging others' property values or seriously harming the public interest - that's a different matter, and a plainly legitimate function of local government. Proper planning and zoning are the tools localities use to manage growth to protect the common good.

Zoning restrictions cannot be applied arbitrarily, of course. But this is all the more reason the county should identify - with the help of its residents - the natural features it wants to protect, then develop a comprehensive plan and the zoning tools needed to preserve these, and then stick to the plan.

In doing so, the county must deal fairly both with property owners and with taxpayers, who will be footing the bill for any compensation required. Fortunately, there are creative options short of either outright purchase of all property identified for preservation, or outright ban on all development of such property. This is not uncharted territory. Other communities lucky enough to count the natural beauty of mountains among their assets have developed means to help protect them. Their experiences can provide the county with a map on how to proceed.

Are county residents prepared to pay the bill for tax breaks to landowners who leave their mountainsides undeveloped, Supervisor Harry Nickens wonders? Residents who view those mountains from their homes every day, or from their cars or bicycles, might be surprisingly willing to accommodate such measures.

When they consider the value of that scenery in attracting visitors and desired growth, and when they add up the cost of providing services to new subdivisions sprawling without guidance or limit, they might well view common-sense restrictions on ridgeline development as a good deal all around.

Nickens is being realistic when he says landowners who participate in such a program should have to pay the difference in back taxes if they end up developing their property some years later. Less realistic, unfortunately, is his hope that the natural beauty of the area can be preserved through strictly voluntary measures.

Some who cherish the valley's natural beauty won't even have to be asked. As for others, well, the county will need to arm itself with a strong policy. Anyone who doubts this should take a look at the condos atop Sugar Mountain in North Carolina.

by CNB