Quiet! The city is sleeping
Published: April 29, 2009
Updated: April 29, 2009
Excitement these days in Waynesboro is rare and fleeting, which perhaps explains the recent mild euphoria generated by piffle. This takes vague shape in the decision to purchase a $7,000 modular trailer to house the Rockfish Gap Tourist Information Center in a new home to open this summer atop Afton Mountain.
Hooray.
“I’m very excited about this opportunity that has been presented to us,” Waynesboro Tourism Director Lianne Crookshanks gushed Monday at the City Council meeting during which the deal was announced. Well, of course, Crookshanks is excited. One of the stoneflies recently discovered on the South River carries greater weight in this town than does tourism, so Crookshanks is likely to be thankful for even splinters of bones tossed in the vicinity of the agency she leads.
This stems from the thinking of some elected officials that tourism, like economic development, is an area that substantively falls outside the city’s purview. The council’s conservative bloc – we’re not so sure where to place Mayor Tim Williams any longer, but Vice Mayor Frank Lucente and Councilman Bruce Allen remain aligned – is principally concerned with keeping taxes level and slashing spending.
In this, we support them. Cries are rising from their opponents that this entails on our part supporting budget cuts to city schools, something Lucente has proposed in the form of a deferment of some city money from this year to next. School officials, who have the option of rejecting Lucente’s idea, are sifting through the implications. Our position is that if the district can make a deferment work, then by all means it should be pursued. If school officials oppose deferment, they are acting within their right.
That discussion is an indicator of Lucente’s particular sensitivity to the times and to a view we also hold, that government budgets almost invariably contain fat that can be trimmed. Officials like him and Allen, who are willing to plunge into the books looking for savings, are rare to the point of vanishing. Government needs more leaders who live out the fiscal conservatism they espouse on campaign trails.
But there is more to consider in Waynesboro than tightening the budget and holding the line on taxes.
The Tourist Information Center is emblematic of this. Some of Waynesboro’s best hope for revitalization spring not from downtown but from Afton Mountain, where the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive end, and from which travelers in an ideal world would flow into Waynesboro.
Adventurous sorts taking one of those exits now are greeted by dilapidated buildings on the mountain and, if they dare venture toward town, a kind of Death Valley entering Waynesboro. Tumbleweeds would be an appropriate addition, if they could bear the deafening quiet.
Changing this does not start with the sort of activity that causes Lucente and Allen to recoil – mindless spending. It starts rather with a recognition that developing that side of town as a gateway is of high importance. Next should follow a plan that reflects that recognition. How can this area be developed? What should it look like? How can private developers be lured in to drive the growth? What’s needed?
At this point, spending determinations should be made, not blindly but with the advantage of foresight. To gain that, city leaders must open their eyes to the opportunities that Waynesboro’s unique geography provides. Mountains need not be moved. But neither will moving trailers up mountains suffice.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The Lee who wrote the comment is the Lee I think I know decently well. The Lee who wrote the editorial I don’t know well at all.
The dichotomy that I observed and think has been buttressed here comes from consideration of two statements from the editorial and your comment that appear to be in conflict.
“The council’s conservative bloc – we’re not so sure where to place Mayor Tim Williams any longer, but Vice Mayor Frank Lucente and Councilman Bruce Allen remain aligned – is principally concerned with keeping taxes level and slashing spending. In this, we support them.“ Contrast this from the editorial with this from your comment: “But we believe in the necessity of growth first and foremost. If that necessity requires spending, then we believe that spending must be shown justified, that reasonable returns on the spending can be shown based on reasonable expectations.“
On the one hand, Lee, you seem to say that you, by proxy through Vice Mayor Lucente, are “principally concerned” with taxes and spending, and then on the other hand is the idea that you advance that you believe “in the necessity of growth first and foremost.“
The words and phrases “principally” and “first and foremost” are fighting for attention here.
Which is it, then, that gets the attention “principally” or “first and foremost”? Are you suggesting that we can keep taxes level and slash spending while at the same time playing out the “essential role in economic development” that I agree it has to play that will no question require investments from the city that will out of necessity require at the least some spending?
I get in trouble sometimes for suggesting that our local politics is playing out like the old zero-sum game that defined the Cold War. And then you write: “One group lobbies for more money while the other lobbies for less.“ As “shrewd” as we all try to be with our money, on both sides, that’s ultimately what this comes down to, unfortunately. Because in this debate, fiscal conservative that I am, focused on growing the economy to provide the revenues that we need to better fund our school system and make quality of life improvements while keeping taxes in line, because I support having the city be an active participant in that growth, I get cornered as being in the group that “lobbies for more money” in this divide.
The dichotomy you assert is false.
What we’re saying is that a plan needs to be in place first and that plan needs to answer bottom-line questions about how costs will be covered and what the tangible economic benefits will be before determinations are made about whether to spend.
We believe there are ways to kindle growth here that don’t necessitate exorbitant spending. But we believe in the necessity of growth first and foremost. If that necessity requires spending, then we believe that spending must be shown justified, that reasonable returns on the spending can be shown based on reasonable expectations.
This piece of the big picture is what’s missing, and it’s what gets lost in the philosophical wrestling. One group lobbies for more money while the other lobbies for less. It’s the same old argument you’ll find in every hall of government from here to Washington.
But this ignores what all of us know, that plenty of people on both sides of the ideological divide have succeeded in the private sector by being shrewd in the use of their money.
We believe extraordinary successes can be had here by taking the same sensible approach. It’s not just about showing money but showing how the money will work to make more.
The threshold we’re trying to cross in this editorial and we’ve been trying to cross for two years is gaining universal acceptance of or at least consensus on the idea that the city has an essential role to play in economic development. We believe that if we can get all agree on that premise, Waynesboro soon thereafter will emerge as the gem we’re sure it can become.
I feel sorry for my friend who has to write these editorials. I know where his head is, and his heart. It’s in the sentence: “But there is more to consider in Waynesboro than tightening the budget and holding the line on taxes.“
The inconsistencies in that line of thinking and in the work to organize River City 2020 and the Lucentian mantras about “keeping taxes level and slashing spending” are obvious. And not original to Waynesboro, either.
The Republican Party is splitting down the middle on taxing and spending issues - with libertarians like our vice mayor constantly pushing tax rates and service delivery down and commonsense conservatives like our mayor espousing the view that being conservative means spending the money we spend wisely to protect the investments made over time.
There’s not much middle ground in this divide among those on the right. These back-and-forth editorials reflect that. Republicans are having a hard time holding their coalition together. Lee’s tortured logic in this editorial, which takes us all over the right side of the ideological map, is evidence of that.

Advertisement