ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, July 14, 1996 TAG: 9607150004
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
COLUMN: Guest Column
SOURCE: RICHARD A. ROTH
I am writing about Virginia Tech President Paul Torgersen's recent remarks on the perception of Virginia Tech as "the 800-pound gorilla" of the New River Valley [``'Smart' road has lessons for winners, losers," Current, June 19]. I am a two-time alumnus of Virginia Tech and a citizen of the New River Valley, one who has become increasingly alarmed as orchards turn into Wal-Marts, fields into subdivisions, and Montgomery County loses the unique landscapes that define its character for many of us.
Simply put, if Virginia Tech wishes not to be seen as an 800-pound gorilla, it must stop acting like one. The infamous "land swap," which resulted in the sprawl and ugly commercial development and accompanying traffic congestion we now see on U.S. 460 has not been forgotten. Tech's role in promoting the "smart" road has reminded many of that unfortunate incident. Tech's commitment to environmental stewardship in managing its own resources has sometimes been weak.
Discounting any suggestion of direct personal gain as a motivation in the Tech administration's role in promoting the smart road, I can only conclude that Torgersen and his predecessors have unfortunately bought into the "vision" for the region expressed by a former transportation commissioner as "a megalopolis" encompassing the Roanoke and New River valleys. It was to further this vision that the smart road (then called the "Direct Link") was first conceived.
The Direct Link originated as the brainchild of those "Charlotte-enviers" who constantly bemoan Roanoke's lack of growth. True, growth would benefit them greatly. It is not true, however, that growth of the type they envision would benefit everyone.
The vision of metropolitan growth pursued by some Roanoke boosters is not only not widely shared by citizens of the New River Valley, but may be inimical to the existing community. Regional growth may be good for Chamber of Commerce members, the real estate and development community, bankers, and the like, but it certainly will not be good for many other communities that have traditionally called this area home.
It is Virginia Tech's relentless pursuit of this vision of metropolitan growth that creates the perception that the institution as not a good citizen in the larger community. If Tech wishes to change this perception, it must change its behavior. I invite you to examine critically the university's role in promoting growth.
All growth is not benign, although some is. What is the difference? Who benefits from growth? Does it (like the smart road) mainly serve to make the "haves" better off, deepening the already serious rift in our society, or is it directed toward improving opportunities equally for all? Does it serve families and communities currently in the New River Valley, or does it primarily attract new people? Does it preserve and enhance the environment, or does it degrade it? These are not easy questions to answer, but it is my hope that the community, including Virginia Tech, will begin to talk about them. Otherwise, we may not recognize this area in 20 years.
I hope that Torgersen will ponder his role and his institution's role, not only in the smart road fiasco, but in the community. Virginia Tech does a great many good things and has the potential to do more, but I believe some soul-searching is necessary first. Ut Prosim: Tech's motto means, "That I May Serve." Whom and what does Virginia Tech serve?
Richard A. Roth lives in Blacksburg and teaches geography at Radford University. He has lived in the New River Valley since 1987 and is president of the NRV Environmental Coalition.
LENGTH: Medium: 68 linesby CNB