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

DATE: THURSDAY, September 28, 1995                   TAG: 9509280006
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

WHAT ABOUT THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER?

PROMOTING projects - such as the newly renovated Hotel Roanoke, the cross-walk to the City Market and other seemingly worthwhile endeavors - serve a purpose in enriching the coffers of the city treasury in the form of taxes generated by outside visitors.

But, while these projects contribute to making a good city greater, city homeowners realize little benefit when it comes to addressing ongoing daily problems they must put up with year after year.

Among these problems are higher real-estate taxes and narrow roads that cannot absorb the ever-increasing vehicle population due to overbuilding of shopping malls and commercial areas. Then there's the problem of rain water control needed to absorb residential overbuilding - especially a proposed plan to erect 70 new homes in the Monterey Hills area in our city.

When visitors spend money in our city, it's good for the city and small-business entrepreneurs. Money is generated and spent, but are these profits spent wisely? Not enough goes for improvements needed to upgrade living conditions for the average homeowner and apartment dweller. Raising taxes when correcting a bad situation isn't the answer. Anyone can do that. Spending wisely is the way to avoid poor planning and then executing a bad project in the end.

It seems that whenever a homeowner complains (rightly so) about taxes, road improvement, schools and water control, the answer is always a resounding ``no money available.''

Something is wrong and requires correction. What a great city Roanoke would be if we had the right people with leadership ability directing the city's course, now and in the future!

NICHOLAS J. BORSELLA ROANOKE

Moneta included in bond referendum

RONALD Saunders' Sept. 24 letter to the editor (``Bedford libraries are in a squeeze'') concerning the library bond referendum contains an error of omission. The text of the referendum actually reads, ``the county's branch library system in the Big Island, Forest, Moneta, Montvale and Stewartsville areas.''

Moneta was left out of his letter, but construction of a library in this community is very much in our plans!

TOM HEMAN

Director, Bedford Public Library

BEDFORD

Cyclists have rights, too

ATTENTION, dog owners:

It's a shame one can't enjoy the pleasure of cycling without the distraction of looking back to see what hairy canine is on your heals. I had the misfortune of such an encounter recently while riding my bicycle along one of the many scenic roadways off U.S. 11 near Troutville. I suddenly found myself being approached by two large dogs going full speed towards my left rear side. All of a sudden I was down, one dog biting on my foot and the other flanking me from the rear. The owner, whom I yelled at to get him to call off his dogs, simply watched from his driveway, not even giving the courtesy of coming down and asking about the extent of my injuries.

Dog owners need to be respectful of cyclists' rights by keeping their pets under control! I was fortunate not to have received any serious injuries from the incident, but I wonder whether the next cyclist riding by will be. To say the least, I won't hesitate to use dog repellant on any future canine encounters.

BRITT ROSSIE

ROANOKE

Advertising firm had a choice

I HAVE read with interest the letters to the editor condemning Keith Austin of Lamar Advertising because he chose not to rent billboard space to advance the homosexual agenda (Sept. 8 article, ``Company rejects ad from gay-rights panel'').

I understand that he runs a private business, and should be able to manage it as he chooses. The word ``choice'' is very much in use today, so if liberals use it to condone abortion, why aren't they willing to let Austin choose who he'll rent sign space to also?

Myer S. Reed's Sept. 18 letter (``Don't blame the valley for billboard bias'') was especially interesting, as he seems to think Austin owes it to the homosexual community to be ready, willing and able to rent space to them. Reed refers to polls in the Roanoke Valley that claim the solid majority have endorsed attitudes of acceptance of homosexuals. This I very much doubt!

Why should we accept homosexuality when the Bible clearly states it's a sin in God's eyes? The Bible tells us to love everyone, but it also tells us to repent of our sins. As an organized group, homosexuals demand that everyone be accepting of their lifestyle. Why is it that we who don't accept it are made to look uncivil and meanspirited?

JANE DREYER

HARDY

by CNB