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

DATE: TUESDAY, September 5, 1995                   TAG: 9509060106
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JOHN WILLIAMSON
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

BALANCED GROWTH

The county's path to creating a balanced community (mixed residential, commercial, industrial and farm land) began in the early '80s when the Environmental Protection Agency mandated development of central sewer systems in Troutville and Daleville to deal with a growing health hazard. With the development of public sewer and the growing flight to suburbia, Botetourt County had two options: become a bedroom community overrun by high-service-cost residential development, or strive for balanced growth. The county wisely chose the balanced growth approach.

In 1983, the county joined with the other Roanoke Valley governments, chambers of commerce, colleges and major businesses to form the Economic Development Partnership. The county's efforts began in earnest in 1986 with the establishment of a formal industrial development effort within the county administration. That effort began to quickly produce tax base and employment growth, eventually resulting in numerous commercial and industrial locations and the creation or completion of five industrial parks totaling nearly 400 acres.

For individuals with any understanding of economic development planning, the constraints of topography, feasibility of gas, water and sewer extensions, locations of existing roads and the need to be close to Interstate 81 and the airport, Greenfield was the obvious and just about the only available option for any continued significant effort at economic development and balanced growth. This situation was evident even in the late '80s when preliminary discussions on the Greenfield property began. Had it not been for the complication of existing land trusts and the income-tax consequences of a sale while a remaining family member still lived, the county would have bought the land years ago.

Some have criticized Botetourt County officials for not having held widespread public debate before buying the land. While debate would have been desirable, the realities are that you cannot successfully negotiate complicated land deals in the media. Such efforts would have increased land costs and likely driven away the seller to negotiate in private with a more discreet purchaser.

Some have argued that the county should stay out of the land-development business and let private interests develop the land. While this sounds all-American, the realities are that private developers cannot and do not develop industrial property of any significance anymore. To attract high-quality, high-paying industrial prospects requires land to be virtually given away, with the county's payback to come in the form of new tax collections on the value-added investment of the new industry. Private developers cannot and do not play in that arena, and relying on them to do so is unrealistic and naive.

Some have criticized the county for building a surplus large enough to buy the land, and have implied it was somehow improper and deceitful. The surplus buildup was public, prudent and designed to give the county the ability to deal with the realities of having to build new schools, new landfills, new recreational facilities; to support the issue of bonds when needed, and to buy industrially developable land when it became available.

The county's financial records are audited ever year, and the balance in county funds has been a matter of open public record every year in published audit reports. The financial records have been available to the media, other public officials and any member of the general public who would bother to read them. The creation and annual funding of public works capital-reserve funds were a matter of public discussion and public-record voting by the Board of Supervisors.

Some have criticized the county for not being environmentally and preservation sensitive with the acquisition. With its closeness to the interstate, development of the Greenfield Farm is inevitable. The county government could watch this farm become another series of residential subdivisions, or make the move that it did.

Clearly, the county's development of the property with public input in the design and planning can be and should be far more environmentally and preservation sensitive than the typical residential development in the county. If not, the public can have repeat opportunities to influence the pattern of development under county ownership. They clearly would not have that opportunity with a private developer, other than appearing at the winner-take-all rezoning hearing process that exists for private development projects.

Those who believe their children and grandchildren should have the chance to work in Botetourt County need to make their support for this project known now. Existing businesses should understand that without continued significant efforts to balance growth in the county, they will be increasingly taxed to support the growing cost for schools, emergency services, recreational facilities, law enforcement and other services required by the certain continued residential growth.

The Greenfield Farm development is a significant opportunity for the county. It would be a great loss if a small but vocal group of opponents succeeded in blocking the industrial-development aspects of the project because theirs are the only voices heard. The Board of Supervisors may have the fortitude and leadership not to let that happen, but supporters should not remain silent and leave this board to wonder if they will hear only criticism for progressive development plans proposed for the Greenfield Farm.

John Williamson, vice president at Roanoke Gas, is a resident and former county administrator of Botetourt County.