Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 5, 1990 TAG: 9004060709
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-14 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The valley is so obviously and so naturally a single entity that you wonder why it hasn't always operated under a single government.
Much the same, albeit on a scale both grander and grimmer, could be asked about the Middle East: Why do those people, occupying a relatively small portion of the Earth's surface, constantly fight and feud instead of work together to make life better for all?
True, the divisions within the Roanoke Valley - thank heaven - do not run nearly so deep; the feuding here is with words, not guns and bombs. Still, there's something of an analogy to be drawn. Like those in the Middle East, the divisions within the Roanoke Valley - between "city" resident and "county" resident," Salemite and Vintonite - are based not on nature or common sense but on the residue of history.
In the valley's case, it is the residue of such dry matters of history as annexation bans and Virginia's obsolete system of independent cities, rather than of engrained ethnic, religious and cultural differences. But the result can sometimes be the same: narrow, parochial, enclave thinking.
And if the Middle East analogy is kept in mind, it's easier to understand the twists and turns that proposed city-county consolidation is taking. The idea is to coax potential opponents into thinking larger thoughts by granting a degree of protection to the maintenance of their enclaves. The proposed consolidation plan in some ways is akin to the Camp David accords: As with "peace" in the Middle East, the plan would not create full-fledged consolidation so much as a framework for working toward it.
Thus, the establishment of single-member districts for nine of the proposed governing body's 11 members, and the drawing of those districts as nearly as possible along current city-county boundary lines. Thus, the use of current city-county boundary lines to distinguish between "urban" and "suburban" tax districts.
And thus, under the latest change in the plan, assurance that the School Board of the proposed Roanoke Metropolitan Government will have a majority of members from what is now the county.
The change must be approved by the General Assembly. But Roanoke City Council has accepted it. Presumably, because it goes even beyond what they had requested, so will a majority of the county supervisors.
Initially, the plan called for a nine- The proposed consolidation plan in some ways is akin to the Camp David accords: As with "peace" in the Middle East, the plan would not create full-fledged consolidation so much as a framework for working toward it. member School Board, one from each election district; as those districts are drawn, it would mean five members from what's now the city and four from what's now the county.
The supervisors suggested the addition of one member from what's now the county and appointment of a designated tie-breaker for what then would be an even-numbered board. Forget the tie-breaker, said City Council, apparently recognizing a truly bad idea when it saw one.
Instead, said council, add two members: one from Vinton (which now is a town that's part of the county, and would be a town that's part of the consolidated Metropolitan Government), and one from the existing locality with the largest school enrollment. That's the county, and will be so indefinitely, even though the city's total population is bigger.
Skeptics have noted that the merger plan will not immediately erase the distinction between city and county. They are right, of course, and the proposed School Board revision isn't likely to ease the skepticism. But judging from public meetings on the plan, there's more opposition to it in the county than in the city, and more county residents oppose it from fear of too much consolidation than of too little, especially regarding the schools.
Whether the newest wrinkle will change many minds is unknown. But for enclave thinkers, it would ease the transition. And non-enclave thinkers can keep in mind that what's important is the quality of a School Board member, not the enclave from which he or she happens to be. Perhaps in time, with a consolidated government, that would be understood throughout the valley.
by CNB