Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, November 30, 1995 TAG: 9511300037
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But let's not too quickly get over the scare.
This project, dear to the interests of Virginia Tech research, Montgomery County congestion-control and regional economic prospects, suffered a close call. It isn't out of the woods yet.
Montgomery supervisors this week rescinded their vote of last week in which they opposed the state's proposed condemnation of land needed to build the research highway. While reviving the project, their reversal is only partial.
Keep in mind: The board did not approve the condemnation this week. Supervisor Joe Gorman, whose vote last week was decisive, has not changed his position so much as remained constant in insisting that supervisors lack enough information to make a sound decision on the state's request. Joe Stewart, who inappropriately voted against the condemnation last week even though it would have affected land he owns, also says he needs more information.
So a study committee has been appointed. The state Board of Transportation at some point will need to send another letter of intent to condemn the land. All well and good.
Except that, in the meantime, smart-road proponents will err grievously, if characteristically, if they fail to pause to diagnose what happened. Self-analysis in particular is needed - not just in the interest of proceeding with the road testing high-tech and automated transportation innovations, but in the interest of all regional initiatives, current and future, made vulnerable by popular skepticism and weak leadership.
Among questions to ponder:
Why is this project - which promises not only a boost for the county's principal economic engine (Virginia Tech) but also convenience for motorists and jobs for local residents - regarded by many as just another grandiose whim of a self-serving elite pushing a Roanoke-driven agenda that is at odds with the interests of the average citizen?
Why is citizen activism around here more easily organized against than for something?
Why do we lack a consensual sense of priorities that would allow the loss of 140 acres in a conservation district to be weighed reasonably against a project's importance to the local economy?
Why, after investing six years and considerable bucks in a project that includes Tech staff, General Motors Corp. and the state and federal governments as partners - and at a time when Richmond is asking universities to demonstrate their relevance - has Tech seemed aloof, even lackadaisical in promoting the smart highway, and more generally reluctant to exercise regional economic leadership?
Why hasn't the region done a better job planning for and managing the effects of growth, instead of encouraging - by poor planning, cramped vision and inadequate protection of natural assets - the understandable perception that growth in itself threatens quality of life?
Tough questions, perhaps. But more important than keeping the smart road alive is to figure out why it could be at risk. The answer, we suspect, has as much to do with the state of leadership in this region as with the effectiveness of anti-growth and Not In My Back Yard protesters.
by CNB