Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, October 31, 1994 TAG: 9411150003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
As a Salemite, I'm happy with most of what our city does. In my opinion, our school system is the best. Our city is very family-oriented. We take care of our kids, and have great sports and activity programs for all. Best of all, we operate at a surplus.
But there's one thing that bothers me. We seem to have some ``career'' members of the Salem School Board. City Council has automatically renewed appointments for members who wish to continue to serve in all but one case that I recall, and that took a great deal of pressure to get a minority member on the board, which we needed. I don't think this is good. Two perceptions need to be examined:
First, the attitude is that not to reappoint a member somehow reflects on the job he or she has done. This isn't the case. I don't know any School Board members who haven't done a good job. However, their penchant for staying on for many years, along with council's reluctance to appoint new members, prevents others from having the privilege of serving.
The second perception is that we may harm the school system, which is doing so well, if we change the School Board. I don't believe this to be so. I know a number of people who have applied for consideration as School Board members. Would they do a good job? Yes. In some cases, their qualifications are better than those who now sit on the board.
There are some problems that go along with elected School Boards. I think we can get along without them as long as we do away with these 10- and 15-year appointments and give someone else a turn.
For those who have served long and well, my heartfelt thanks. But don't make a career out of it!
TONY WILLIAMS
SALEM
The GOP contract is needed for reform
WHAT IS the contract with America that the Republican Party has promised the American people if Republicans obtain a majority in Congress? In its usual and unprofessional style, the Roanoke Times & World-News has roundly criticized this contract without explaining what it is. Briefly, the contract states:
On the first day on the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will propose the major reforms aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government. They include the following:
Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country to also apply equally to the Congress.
Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse.
Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staffs by a third.
Limit the terms of all committee chairs.
Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee.
Require committee meetings to be open to the public.
Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase.
Guarantee an honest accounting of our federal budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
The rest of the contract proposes a series of legislation that requires congressional action and debate. The eight actions listed above do not require legislation, and are obviously actions needed to restrict abuses in how Congress works. Why didn't the Democratic majority do something like this during all its years of control?
JOHN C. LeDOUX
BLACKSBURG
Property rights getting trampled
IN RESPONSE to your Oct. 11 editorial regarding the issue of property rights in Virginia (``A rocky road worth taking''), several points deserve highlighting:
``They are gingerly skirting the crags and outcroppings of dearly held property rights ... '' ``Property rights are sacred ground in Virginia.'' ``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.''
Apparently, property rights aren't considered sacred in the Peoples Republic of Botetourt, which wants to cram a new middle school onto a tiny strip of land surrounded by one-lane cul-de-sacs not designed to handle the volume or weight of traffic associated with a school.
The school's parking lot will be 48 feet from your driveway. Just think what pleasure children will bring as they trample your flower beds while walking to and from school, and how school activities that overflow the parking lot will result in your driveway and street being blocked by parked cars.
Botetourt is determined to violate property rights of residents of the Orchard Hill subdivision, and, in doing so, to damage their property value. Is this necessary? A much larger tract of land in Blue Ridge could accommodate the school, and still provide adequate buffers for the nearest resident. Botetourt has bought hundreds of acres along U.S. 11 that could accommodate the school without intruding on private residences, and provide access on roads designed to handle school traffic. Hundreds of acres have been proposed for development at the base of Tinker Mountain. A middle school could go there. Violating property rights and damaging property values of Orchard Hill could be avoided with proper planning, zoning and common sense.
ROBERT S. MEYERS
CLOVERDALE
Ollie's follies aren't conservative
IN REPLY to Walter L. King's Oct. 12 letter to the editor, "Conservatives needed in Congress":
How does he define a conservative? Here is Oliver North in the last candidates' debate proposing that we increase the defense budget by $50 billion. He considers virtually all so-called entitlements, which now take up half the national yearly budget, to be untouchable, including military retirees' cost-of-living increases, Medicare and Social Security. (Reagan actually skipped some COLAs, and Clinton deferred the 1994 increase until the April 1 check. The latter action resulted in big savings that seem to me, a federal retiree, to be preferable, although cuts are never welcomed.)
North's next salvo was directed toward President Clinton for the new tax levy on Social Security recipients who are those most well off and able to pay, including the very wealthy. North proposes to provide student-aid vouchers for parents who are able to pay to send their children to private schools.
Now, North describes our armed forces as deflated and ``hollow.'' I doubt the Iraqis would agree out there in that desert north of Kuwait.
As for King, he seems to be sending out invitations to join the local follies club.
GERALD H. HUBBS
BEDFORD
Expose the truth about smart roads
FOR SEVERAL years, I've followed the ``smart road'' project being sold to the public by the beneficiary group while waiting for the media to reveal the big lie for what it is. However, the media have failed by continuing to source with the beneficiary group that proposes the project as a potential fiber-optic success story, with economic benefits and new business start-ups ad nauseam.
One needs to understand: Smart-road technology development has little to do with public benefits, but much to do with beneficiary-group benefits. The name of the game is pork - how to get free government money.
The beneficiary group includes Virginia Tech - hungry for research money, and more focused on grant money than its teaching mission; corporations like General Motors that want grant money to fund their product development and testing; and individuals whose career development hinges on grant-funded projects that wither away without subsequent accountability. This group knows there's no accountability after the fact in grant programs - the name of the game is ``get the free money.''
Whatever the benefits of smart highways (i.e., safety, convenience and possibly speed), there's no real economic basis that can justify application of smart highways on a regional or national basis. At best, they're minor improvements to a national transportation system, built at great cost from the nation's treasury, which is falling apart from lack of funding. On a scale of one to 10, smart technology rates one or two compared with reducing dependance on foreign oil, infrastructure repair/replacement, and reducing auto use nationally.
Smart-technology development is frequently compared to fiber-optic development by its supporters. But fiber-optic development was principally a private/commercial development because the immediate commercial economic benefits were gigantic, whereas smart technology offers few commercial benefits. The media need to stop mouthing statements of the beneficiary group and expose the truth in the public interest.
ROY LOCHNER
ROANOKE
by CNB