ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, May 19, 1996 TAG: 9605200011
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
COLUMN: New River Journal
SOURCE: BRIAN KELLEY
The "smart" road is the bugaboo of New River Valley politics: it generates anxiety on many fronts.
If you listen to some opponents of the proposed high-tech highway, you'd think the decade-old proposal is the result of a conspiracy between business interests and Virginia Tech to destroy the Ellett Valley, designed to line pockets with millions of dollars in construction and research contracts.
If you take seriously the words of road proponents, on the other hand, you'd think Blacksburg will stagnate and die and tumbleweeds will blow down College Avenue if the six miles of four-lane highway aren't finished by 2015. The road would connect Blacksburg with Interstate 81 just below Christiansburg Mountain.
Given the raw emotions evidenced in recent public forums on the highway proposal, it's worthwhile to look back at how we came to this point. We also should consider exactly what will be at issue as Montgomery County officials gear up to make a decision - at the very least a request for more time - in the next three weeks.
Around Labor Day last year, the Virginia Department of Transportation notified Montgomery County of its intent to condemn approximately 140 acres of rural land for the road's right of way. Controversy over the smart road, at this point, was simmering. The state policy decision to build the road had been made in early 1992. The federally required environmental review had been issued in 1993. VDOT added to that environmental review last fall, prompting a lawsuit from road opponents in November because, they contend, the review was changed substantially without allowing for proper public comment. Meanwhile local governments, including Montgomery County's, had a record of supporting the smart road dating back to 1989.
An obscure section of a state law that allows local governments to set up special conservation areas forced the state to get Montgomery County's permission for cutting through this district along Den and Wilson creeks.
Last fall, the county supervisors and their staff weren't quite sure what to do with the state's notification, since there were few, if any, precedents statewide. The law said two county advisory panels were supposed to review the request and make recommendations to the supervisors. The supervisors, in turn, had 30 days to decide if the state's action would have an adverse effect on the county policy to preserve rural farm and forest land. Ultimately, the law requires the supervisors to balance that possible harm against the necessity to provide a public service in the cheapest and most practical manner.
The advisory panels split: the Planning Commission said the road condemnation might have a negative effect; the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee said it would not. The supervisors then ordered another 60 days of review and set a November public hearing on the proposal.
Opponents, sensing a new skepticism about the smart road among some supervisors, were fast to rally their forces for a full-court press of public opinion against the proposed condemnation. They outmaneuvered and outgunned the road's backers. The result was the board's stunning 4-3 vote last November against the transportation department's plans. The smart road could go no further. A top state official said if the decision stood, the smart road would die.
At that point, road proponents got their turn at behind-the-scenes lobbying. One of the supervisors, Joe Gorman, changed his mind. A week later, the board rescinded its earlier vote, with Gorman and Supervisor Joe Stewart casting the swing votes.
Then, in December, the county staff came up with what it had lacked before: an application for the state to request and justify removing land from the conservation district. All winter and early spring, the transportation department worked on the response to the application's 92 questions.
The state agency released its 53-page answer to the press on May 3. (We put them on line at http://www.infi.net/roatimes/road.html.) It formally reapplied with the county on May 9.
Now Montgomery County is back where it was in September. It has 30 days to decide, after hearing from advisory panels, if the state's proposal might have an adverse effect on the district.
The Board of Supervisors can simply decide it will not have an adverse effect, and the matter is settled: VDOT can bulldoze ahead. Or, a board majority can order another 60-day review and conduct another public hearing like the one in November.
There's another alternative, too. The Wilson Creek/Den Creek district is up for renewal this summer. The county could remove from the district the 140 acres the state needs for the smart road and make the entire VDOT question moot. That would still require a high-profile public hearing and vote, though.
Monday night, the supervisors will get together with their staff to talk about the state's application, the validity of the answers and other procedural issues. On June 10, the supervisors will meet again with their advisory boards.
Whether tumbleweeds will roll down College Avenue, or greedy moguls chortle over the desecration of the Ellett Valley, I'll leave for the polemicists of both sides. But that's how we arrived at this point. Where we go next - whether the smart road lives or dies - will be back up to the six men and one woman whom voters elected to serve on the Board of Supervisors.
A public meeting on the "smart" road will be held at 7 p.m. Monday on the third floor of the Montgomery County Courthouse in Christiansburg.
LENGTH: Medium: 97 linesby CNB