There will be a joint government meeting which brings many local elected officials together -- towns, county, and state legislators. As such, these meetings are open to the public -- and media. This legislative meeting is hosted by the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors at 6 p.m. in the Government Center's multi-purpose room at 755 Roanoke St., Christiansburg. The meeting will not be videotaped and no public comment is allowed. It does qualify as a public meeting, however, so citizens can attend. A similar meeting with legislators will be held this Monday night at CHS with the elected school reiterating what it has been asking the state for since the turn of the century.
One topic voters can hope will be discussed -- if not at this meeting, then another time soon -- is the court house project which has been swelling in cost during the past decade (like the Peppers Ferry Road project). Several bonds and much public debt has already been assumed by all county taxpayers, yet only this past March has a new "move ahead" design been released.
Note in the picture, above, privately owned buildings along Roanoke Street have disappeared. The remaining commercial buildings on East Main are swallowed up and surrounded by the county complex. Impacted businesses not only face losing their established locations, but also equity or low rents and therefore may have to decide to simply go out of business or find ways to cover related moving and new start up expenses.
Note the Town of Christiansburg recently re-adopted downtown on-street parking restrictions (signage and enforcement not yet in place), due to abuse by court house regulars who use short term parking in the town square area, instead of the county parking lot.
Note in the picture, above, the town's small municipal parking lot immediately at the front door of the proposed new court house.
Note county and court officials are on record of only being able to "control" employee parking, and unable to "enforce" parking habits of visitors.
Note the town is currently developing "parking structure" zoning and related ordinances, because this has never been an identified need in the town before, much less downtown. The county's construction project proposes such a structure (not a garage), using part of its existing parking lot and topography -- plus a couple of adjacent vacant properties already acquired at costs far exceeding appraised values.
Has anyone examined whether another parking structure (garage) built on the town's existing municipal lot would be in the same ballpark for costs to acquire additional properties and demolishing buildings? With a two-level parking plan already proposed for the new courthouse, could another structure take care of parking needs for the next 20-25 years for both town and county government offices, and adjacent properties who are losing more on-street spaces? Do our elected officials really want to drive business out or pass some of this project's "soft" costs onto small business operators, including removing more downtown properties from county and town tax rolls?
Hopefully, citizens can at least expect elected officials to act like the issues raised by these questions have been considered. For related background, read the following stories: