ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, April 15, 1996 TAG: 9604150008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: EVELYN D. BETHEL
I'VE BEEN reading, listening to comments and thinking about the current Henry Street District Land Use Plan phenomenon in our dear magic and star city, Roanoke, Va. - the place where dreams or nightmares are realized.
While engaged in these mental gymnastics, one of my favorite comic strips kept popping up - Peanuts with the yearly Lucy and Charlie Brown episode that reveals one of the most puzzling features of human nature. You know the scene. Lucy tempts Charlie to kick the football; as he approaches it, she yanks the football away and he falls flat on his back.
Year after year this happens. Does Lucy apologize? No. Does she trick Charlie again? Yes. Since Lucy continues her mastery over Charlie and does not change her ways, is it logically correct to conclude that she has no conscience? Since Charlie keeps succumbing to the same lure, is it logically correct to conclude that he is dimwitted? Who bears the greater responsibility - the one with power who lures, or the one who yields?
Disraeli has stated "All power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise; that from the people and for the people all springs, and all must exist."
Before specifically addressing the Henry Street plan, which I've read in detail, let's consider two important topics.
Why is Henry Street a desolate place today? I think it's because city officials wanted it to be considered an urban wasteland until they were ready to use it.
How did the property on Henry Street get to be owned by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and Total Action Against Poverty? Records will reveal that some, if not most, property owners/business operators wanted to stay on Henry Street. They fought through the legal system only to have judges rule that the doctrine of eminent domain could be used to take the property.
It was.
Did the city or housing authority within one or two years attempt to sell the land and have other privately owned businesses established? No. (Yet, after scamming Hotel Dumas from its owners, the housing authority gave it to TAP because the city has designs for a convention center - not to be confused with the already built conference center - for the entire east side of Henry Street.)
Did anybody attempt to buy any part of the land on Henry Street? Yes - I've been told they did, and were verbally notified the property belonged to the housing authority and could not be purchased. Fact or fiction, only the persons actually involved know for sure. However, it is a fact that no "for sale" signs have ever been placed on Henry Street by the housing authority, which has owned most of the property for nearly 10 years.
History has disclosed how, in my opinion, most of the land was obtained immorally, albeit legally, and deliberately let lie fallow until the city was ready to use it.
Now attention can be directed toward the Henry Street Revitalization Committee and the plan itself. For more than a decade, this committee, headed by former Mayor Noel C. Taylor, has existed and its recently published mission statement is indeed laudable. Can the committee implement its goals? While its goals are moral, will they be legally binding upon each developer in the plan?
Unfortunately, oft times there are many slips between stated goals and accomplished realities. (Need you be reminded of promises made during Kimball, Commonwealth, Wometco and Wells Avenue?)
Lorraine Hansberry, in her play "A Raisin in the Sun," asked: "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun? Or fester like a sore and then run? Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags like a heavy load. Or does it explode?"
One has to wonder why the long, long dream of a revitalized Henry Street was deferred and "put out of sight, out of mind" until the recent Hotel Roanoke dream was realized. Perhaps a revitalized Henry Street would have prevented the closure and subsequent expensive reopening of Hotel Roanoke.
Surely you've heard it said: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true," "buyer beware" and "once bitten, twice shy." These should be the watch statements with respect to this and any future proposed Henry Street District Land Use Plan.
If the premise of a tourist attraction is accepted, the current plan does indeed sound very, very good - too good to be true upon first hearing and subsequent commentaries. Careful and thoughtful reading of the plan itself reveals many, many areas of concern. Detailed questions and comments, including those from people throughout the area, have been submitted to the housing authority, so only two major concerns will be mentioned here.
Foremost is the fact that the plan did not address, except as a byproduct of safety for tourists, any vital residential neighborhood issues (regulation of noise, lights, traffic, encroachment or nonencroachment, etc. into the immediate and nearby communities where people live). Yet impacts upon the Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center and the City Market were discussed.
The plan supposedly brings back the best of a predominantly black neighborhood, but listed no points of interest pertaining to our heritage. Places such as the Harrison Museum of African-American Culture, Gainsboro Branch Library, the newly officially designated Historic Gainsboro neighborhood and other places such as Mount Moriah Baptist Church and the Booker T. Washington Monument were strangely omitted - but Explore Park was included.
In addition, marketing strategies did not show any black publication or business, including our very own Roanoke Tribune, as sources to attract any of the projected million tourists per year.
It appears the entire Henry Street District Land Use Plan debacle can be attributed to a list of C's: communication (the lack of honest and open); community (no active commitment to preserving and restoring neighborhoods); corporate crime (legal but immoral procedures upheld by the courts); conscience (the lack of it by officials); citizenry co-opting (a baseless blind faith in authority).
In view of the historical facts and glaring inadequacies of the plan, is it any wonder that residents within a stone's throw and alert citizens are raising questions? If not us, who? If not now, when? We see what is trying to be accomplished, and it's not a beautiful sight.
The past should be used as a lamp and guide to avoid mistakes. Pearl Bailey said, "There is a way to look at the past. Don't hide from it. It will not catch you if you don't repeat it."
Evelyn D. Bethel of Roanoke is president of Historic Gainsboro Preservation District, Inc., and of the Historic Gainsboro Preservation Coalition.
LENGTH: Long : 122 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: File photo/staff. The Old Henry Street area of Firstby CNBStreet Northwest as it was in 1966.