Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 24, 1993 TAG: 9303240317
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
TOURISM, EXPLORE PROJECT ARE FALSE PATHS
THE FEB. 28 articles in the Roanoke Times & World-News about "Where do we go from here?" and "What we think about where we are going" certainly give rise to some interesting thoughts, particularly in the area of tourism and the Explore Project. The paper, surprisingly, doesn't mince words in pointing out that the statistics indicate that neither are supported by the general populace. Wherein comes the question: Just who is it that supports these two follies?First, there is no doubt that the state supports the tourism idea, because tourists are easy marks for a few little taxes without the state having to provide anything in return. Actually, the state sometimes seems to prefer tourism to business and industry because the latter two require certain services from the state. Unfortunately, even the most lucrative tourist operations usually pay minimum or poverty-level wages and seldom offer full-time, career-type positions. So, it is only natural that the general public would want the emphasis placed on more substantial businesses and industries where they might find livable wages and more long-term security.
Likewise, the Explore Project has no popular support. So, how does it garner the constant drumbeat of publicity that it does? More importantly, how did it rate Roanoke County's economic-development investment of $350,000 for a "temporary" road into the project? This action violated the county's own guidelines for economic-development projects and is especially puzzling when the county is in dire need of new business and industry, not a project which will likely never be self-supporting or a contributor to the tax base. Or, do the figures published deceive and do the county taxpayers overwhelmingly support the Explore Project?
Explore and the Roanoke River Parkway were both purely pork-barrel projects that were supposed to dump huge sums of state and federal money into the valley, for what amounted to the pet projects of a few well-heeled local businessmen and politicians. Even from the beginning, it was never anticipated that Explore would be self-supporting, because zoos historically are not. Therefore, the project just kept changing to try to garner public support.
The big proponents of the project, ex-City Manager Bern Ewert, County Supervisor Harry Nickens, General Assembly Del. Dick Cranwell and ex-Congressman Jim Olin, refused to accept the fact that there was no popular support for these projects. So why would Roanoke County invest so much tax money in a "temporary" road to Explore, a project from which it can never expect a return for the investment?
Likewise, why would the National Park Service suddenly decide to provide a connection from the Blue Ridge Parkway on to Rutrough Road, a residential road, temporary or not? Do both groups have some unspecified agenda, or were they simply swayed by the proddings of Nickens and the River Foundation? This question really deserves an answer, particularly for county taxpayers.
Five or six years ago, then-Sen. Granger Macfarlane asked the same sort of questions about feasibility, cost and purpose of the projects in contrast to real business investments. He never got an answer because the "non-profit" River Foundation didn't have to answer questions. Before more millions of dollars are sunk into this grandiose white elephant, someone should demand answers if taxpayers must foot the bill. RON BARKER VINTON