ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, July 23, 1996 TAG: 9607230029
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
YOUR JULY 12 editorial (``Needed: a gas tax for Valley Metro'') concerning an area-wide gas tax for the support of Valley Metro highlights the seduction of federal programs.
Thirty years ago when I moved to Roanoke, the bus company was privately owned, and the company was under contract to the city to provide transportation for children to school. Then federal programs started to roll in. The schools got money (with strings attached) for their own bus system. Schools no longer contracted with the bus company, which started to lose money.
If my memory is correct, the bus company asked for a small subsidy from the city (and Salem), which was denied. It then headed toward bankruptcy. Finally, the city stepped in and bought the company for about $1 million, which was possible because of the availability of federal funds from the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA). Of course, we had to buy equipment as UMTA dictated. The equipment was much too big and expensive to operate. That pattern continues to this day.
I think it's a good thing the federal funds are drying up so Valley Metro can be put on a sound, economic basis, and we can get rid of unnecessary and uneconomic mandates.
Before we go beating the drums for a new tax, how about studying what we can do to cut costs, and perhaps even get the company into private hands where there would be an incentive to operate efficiently? Then everyone in the valley would benefit.
CHARLES D. WARING
ROANOKE
No victors in the VMI decision
AS A Virginian, I was saddened by the Supreme Court's decision in the Virginia Military Institute case (June 27 article, ``VMI must admit women, Supreme Court rules 7-1'').
Despite the celebrations by some for what they perceive to be a victory for women's rights, there are, in truth, no victors.
The fact is that now neither men nor women will share in the ``VMI experience.'' How sad.
JAMES F. BROOKS
BLACKSBURG
Ed Kohinke just doesn't get it
IN REPLY to Ed Kohinke's July 12 letter to the editor (``About Don Terp's untenable tirade ... '') on the article about me in your July 8 edition:
It's always interesting to me how people run true to form. No one has ever called me confused, except Kohinke, who demonstrated considerable confusion during his single term on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by reversing his vote on a few occasions.
Interesting also is that he doesn't understand the real reason behind Supervisor Bob Johnson's and County Administrator Elmer Hodge's offers of county employment. Quite a few people called to congratulate me on not accepting either offer, and they knew the reason without any explanation on my part.
This is a standard ploy. If you work for a person or organization, you have little room to be critical of their performance - at least if you want to keep your job. In other words, by becoming employed by Roanoke County, I would be silenced - or at least they hoped I would. And at taxpayers' expense. Nice, huh?
Are county finances in ``better shape'' (as Kohinke stated)? One question I would ask is how the 1996-97 budget ballooned from $151 million in a published advertisement on May 26 to $207.6 million on June 28 (a $56.6 million increase). When the number received final approval at the regular bimonthly meeting of the Board of Supervisors, it was $207.6 million. Where is the money coming from and where is it going? The report by the county budget manager at the June 28 supervisors' meeting was totally inadequate to justify this increase.
As long as Roanoke County government continues to conceal its operations, particularly its financial reporting, from the taxpayers, distrust and doubt as to performance will result. If Kohinke really understands this system, why doesn't he or didn't he sound the horn as county administration expenses rose 140 percent from 1986 to 1995? In the same period, debt service rose 242 percent while education expenses only went up 53 percent.
DON TERP
ROANOKE
Tax Cox Cable like other businesses
CAVE SPRING Supervisor Fuzzy Minnix hasn't examined his Cox Communications cable bill (July 15 article, ``Roanoke County has cable tax hopes''). Cox does not pay a franchise fee - it merely collects this separately stated charge from subscribers and remits it to the localities.
If the county doesn't collect the full business, professional and occupational license tax from this greedy company, the Board of Supervisors, county attorney, county treasurer and commissioner of revenue should be censured and removed from office.
Why shouldn't Cox pay the BPOL tax the same as other businesses do? Why did Roanoke city settle for 50 cents on the dollar? Has Cox bought preferential treatment?
WILLIAM A. COOK JR.
ROANOKE
LENGTH: Medium: 98 linesby CNB