
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, May 6, 1990                   TAG: 9005080502
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: F2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

HOW CITY CAN SHOW IT WAS ABOVEBOARD

IN A DEC. 4 letter to the editor, I, with some engineering qualifications, cited the ingenious structural and traffic engineering of the Hunter Viaduct's west leg. Without a 90-degree turn, it puts traffic along the business area's north side, or onto and off of the city's main north-south street. Admittedly, this invitation into the business area is mostly to northside residents.

Those expressing their opinions to me believed that since the commitment to replace this city asset with a tall building was made before they knew what was going on, there must have been under-the-table deals with private interest. That general opinion is not very flattering to the city government's credibility, so in my letter, I suggested a solution.

Unfortunately, I'd gotten too windy, and my suggestion was edited out, but my letter was still titled: "Restore credibility to city government." All city projects must go through due process, and the Roanoke Times & World-News has faithfully apprised its readers of City Council's activities: hearings, the temporary traffic plan, drawing of the proposed new multilane access, a new bridge, land purchases required, and what this (including the removal of the viaduct's west leg) was going to cost the city and, with consolidation, the county taxpayers.

Publicizing reprints of these news articles would restore credibility to the city government by showing that it had duly informed the public of its plans and cost to taxpayers before any commitments to proceed were made; I hope.

\ J.W. CATES\ ROANOKE

by CNB