ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, September 25, 1996 TAG: 9609250025
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
THE POINTS raised in your Sept. 18 editorial (``We can't add lanes forever'') are well-taken, but I would like to say a little more about the connection between transportation and land-use planning.
Your criticism of the Virginia Department of Transportation for being ``fixated on road-building'' is only partly justified. Remember, VDOT is currently the only organization that does any statewide planning whatsoever. And, given the limitations they must work under, they do a reasonably good job. The problem is that they are always playing catch-up.
VDOT must provide new transportation facilities to deal with the consequences of land-using planning (or lack of land-use planning) conducted by Virginia's hundreds of towns, cities and counties. They favor roads over rail because roads are more flexible - roads can accommodate freight, private passenger vehicles and mass transit (buses).
Roads are usually cheaper to build and can continue to function, even if traffic happens to decline to very low levels. Railroads, on the other hand, are best suited to mass transportation, require a high initial investment, and must cease to operate if traffic falls below a certain critical level.
This means that railroads make sense only when they serve stable commercial, industrial or residential districts. No one wants to build a railroad to serve a customer base that might move to the suburbs in five or six years.
For example, over the past few years, Christiansburg's commercial district has moved about two miles north. Rail service to the old downtown wouldn't serve much purpose now. Such expensive facilities are only worthwhile if they will be useful over a long period of time. So long as we allow developers to build anything anywhere, VDOT has little choice but to chase them with the asphalt-layer.
If we want to stop the countryside from becoming a vast network of pavement, we must exercise some reasonable control over land development. If we make efficient use of our land, efficient transportation will follow.
JEFFERY SCOTT
PEARISBURG
School kids matter more than hairdos
AS THE mother of school-age children, I was sorry that Joe Nash lost his bid for a position on the Roanoke City School Board. Everything I've read indicated that he was a hard-working and highly qualified candidate.
Since his loss, there has been a great deal of press regarding Nash's ponytail and the fact that it may have cost him the position. A recent example was Douglas Crouse's letter to the editor (Sept. 1, ``Ponytails and prejudice in Roanoke'').
Although few will admit it, many people were probably prejudiced against Nash because of his hair. This isn't fair, but it isn't unusual. And it certainly isn't limited to the Roanoke area. Any employment counselor or personnel director will tell you how important appearance is; serious job applicants heed their advice. One tip I often read is that you should dress for the job you want, not the job you have. A person's hair style is part of that total package.
Knowing this, Nash could have cut his hair before seeking a seat on the School Board. A clean-cut, professional image, combined with his record and experience, would have made him a powerful force with the City Council as well as with the public.
Certainly, he shouldn't have had to cut his hair. Of course, it shouldn't have mattered. But it did. And if he had cut his hair, he may have been serving on the School Board now instead of reading letters of support from people who are indignant that his ponytail may have kept him off of it.
I hope he'll run again for the School Board, but that he'll run to the barbershop first. I hope that serving on the board is more important to him than making a stand for his ponytail. Principles are important, but so are schoolchildren, and Nash can help them much more if he is on the School Board than in the headlines.
As compromises go, a haircut should be a pretty easy one to live with. He can always grow it out after he's appointed.
BETTY LIEDTKE
ROANOKE
Count the reasons to reject Clinton
WITH BILL Clinton ahead in the polls, I wondered why I am not with the majority. I decided to itemize my objections to Clinton's re-election. They are as follows.
As an ex-serviceman, I cannot vote for a draft dodger. Whatever his reasons for not going to Vietnam, another man had to go for him.
He favors deficit spending. In the past 50 years, we have all indulged ourselves with the wealth of a great nation. We must realize that it's time to balance our checkbook.
He allows third-trimester abortions. As a physician, I know that's killing and it's wrong in anyone's religion.
The man has always lived on some type of government funding. No wonder he favors big government. Did he ever make a dime?
Hillary Clinton has too much influence in the White House. Her cruel management of the travel-office employees is scary.
Clinton's use of the FBI files and the Whitewater revelations suggest he has a sneaky personality that is hidden from us. Wanting to put a curfew on teens hints of dictatorship.
He has weakened our foreign policy with concentration on domestic issues. This appeals to our selfish nature, but in the long run could lead to the nuclear vaporization of our children.
The White House history of leniency toward drug use and sexual aberrations makes for poor moral leadership.
We need to give the Republicans a chance. They had a majority but Clinton vetoed all their significant legislation.
I believe this country is tortured by the growth of new government laws and regulations. I fear for the individual. Let's take back some of our freedom!
Give honor and bravery a chance. Vote for Bob Dole.
S. ROSS MACKAY
BLACKSBURG
Power line's critics mislead
JEFF Janosko's Aug. 22 letter to the editor (``Why utilities need to be regulated'') refers to "the feeble rate of growth in electricity use in the United States" and points to a rate today of 2.7 percent. That's not a feeble rate of growth by any means. It means that in 25 years, use will be up by more than 85 percent (not that the 2.7 percent rate must be compounded annually).
The actual use in our American Electric Power-Virginia/West Virginia service area is up by 98 percent since 1970, so that is the real number we should look at in this area. That number has created the need for AEP's proposed transmission-reliability project.
Janosko attempts to mislead the reader again by implying that the line will be built for the Richmond area or utilities in North Carolina. Yet as the State Corporation Commission has said, "major additional transmission capacity is needed to serve native load customers [my emphasis] in Appalachian's (AEP Virginia/West Virginia) service territory.'' Janosko seems to favor regulation on one hand, but doesn't want to listen to the regulatory opinion when it doesn't match his own. This is pure self-serving double standard.
As for the claim that AEP has self-serving motives in pointing out the increased risk of blackout: In the light of three days of Western blackouts so far this year, and considering the ever-increasing use of this area's electricity, public warnings by AEP are not only appropriate, but are a critically important obligation of the utility. It would have been better if the Western utilities had warned their customers of potential outages rather than giving 4 million people nasty surprises.
ROY E. KEATTS
ROANOKE
Voters get what they deserve
I WRITE this letter with great sadness. I believe that if this country experiences a further disintegration of social, moral, economic and spiritual attitudes, in 20 years the America so many of us have loved, respected, fought and died for will no longer exist. It will have evolved into a collection of armed camps: blacks vs. whites, both vs. Latinos and Asians, male vs. female, with no common agenda and few - if any - common expectations for citizens and their children.
That is why the pending election is so important. Four more years of ``Bubba and the Bimbo'' will be all this country can stand. If voters are so close-minded, politically and economically undereducated or indifferent, then I believe what they get they will deserve.
PHIL T. PAFFORD
ROANOKE
LENGTH: Long : 159 linesby CNB