Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, November 28, 1995 TAG: 9511280145
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BRIAN KELLEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG LENGTH: Medium
One week and 200 phone calls later, Joe Gorman changed his mind.
The Montgomery County supervisor introduced a resolution Monday that rescinded the board's week-old opposition to the state's proposed condemnation of land in an agricultural and forestal district for the ``smart'' highway.
The new resolution was not a complete reversal - it did not endorse the taking of land in the conservation area - but it let stand seven previous votes by the Board of Supervisors since April 1989 that supported the highway. And it set up a committee to compile questions for the Virginia Department of Transportation before it seeks Montgomery County's approval again.
The recision passed 5-2. Supervisors Nick Rush and Jim Moore - both longtime opponents of the smart highway - were in the minority.
Supervisor Joe Stewart also withdrew his opposition. He later said he doesn't oppose the smart road, only its proposed location, which crosses land he owns. He wants to see more information on alternative routes.
Gorman said last week's vote - the first time a local government has taken a stand against the smart highway - was deficient because the board acted without adequate information. ``I felt like we hadn't followed the rules,'' he said.
Gorman said the more than 200 telephone calls, which he received after last week's vote, ran 2-to-1 against the road. ``There's pressure from both sides, the fors and the againsts,'' Gorman said. ``Yes, I was subject to that pressure.''
The decision appeared to remove - or at least postpone - a major political stumbling block to building the road, which has been in the works for more than a decade as a means of creating a ``direct link'' between Roanoke and Blacksburg, and, since the late 1980s, as a boost to research into smart auto and road technologies at Virginia Tech.
Its advocates say the road would bring millions of dollars in research grants to Tech and spur related private-sector development. Its critics call the road a taxpayer-financed boondoggle being pushed by Tech and Roanoke interests that will harm the environment, take homes and duplicate the function of Alternative 3A, the proposed U.S. 460 bypass connector.
Virginia Tech President Paul Torgersen and other university officials watched the vote to rescind, which came after less than an hour of discussion.
``My presence is a statement of how important the smart road is to the university,'' Torgersen said. Tech has invested six years in the project and made commitments to scholars, General Motors Corp., and the federal and state governments, he said.
``You understand our perception of the smart highway: This is Montgomery County's Motorola,'' Torgersen said, referring to the semiconductor manufacturer that announced this summer it planned to bring up to 5,000 jobs to the Richmond area within a decade. ``I don't want to let this get away.''
After the vote, the board accepted a request from VDOT to withdraw its letter of intent to condemn the land for the road, which brought the issue up three months ago. That leaves the next move up to the state Transportation Board: It can notify the county again of its intent in coming weeks or months, or it can simply sit and wait. County Agricultural and Forestal District 7, between Wilson and Den creeks in Ellett Valley, expires at the end of next year; it will be up to the landowners to reapply and the board to grant them renewal.
Last week, County Attorney Roy Thorpe said the state could condemn the land without the board's approval. But Monday, he said subsequent research has turned up a section of the law that blocks VDOT from condemning land in an agricultural and forestal district without a local government's endorsement.
VDOT officials did not attend the meeting. Resident Engineer Dan Brugh, in his withdrawal letter, gave no indication when he might file a new letter, except he asked that the board let him know as ``soon as possible'' the additional information it wants on the highway.
As part of its recision, the board set up a four-member staff committee to develop a form and a checklist of questions to help the supervisors decide next time around.
The law requires the board to balance the potential adverse effect of the smart road on the agricultural district against the need to provide a service that's economical and practical. During last week's discussions, economic arguments against the $103 million smart road project appeared to sway the four-person majority.
by CNB