George,

The Meadowcreek Parkway will be a major issue in the upcoming nomination and election for City Council. The article from the Daily Progress that refers to the land transfer as "set" seriously misunderstands the controversy that will surround this effort to avoid the Virginia Constitution by substituting an "easement" for a "sale" and thus the unusual majority ( in this case, four votes on Council) the Constitution requires for such a land transfer.Because the City Council does not have the four votes constitutionally necessary to transfer this land to VDOT, the three vote majority proposes to shiftily evade the law by substituting an "easement" for a "sale".

It won't work legally, ethically, or politically. The public will understand that an "easement" is a term that really means transfer of control over the land from the city to VDOT that would evade the clear terms of the Virginia Constitution. A fourth vote is critical if the Constitutional provision is to be respected. If the fourth vote isn't on City Council now, it will have to come from a newly elected pro-MCP member in the new election. The Democratic nomination process will be critical. And who knows who the Republicans might nominate, and which candidate will be elected?

In the recent past, the MCP zealots were able to evade federal prohibitions on taking parkland for roads with federal money if there were "prudent and feasible alternatives" Using Enron-type, accounting practices and with the aggressive support of pro-road local people, the federal law was crippled. Interestingly, pro-highway groups are urging the removal of this "prudent and feasible" provision of federal transportation in the Congress right now.

This impetus for this proposed, and extremely untimely device, comes less from City Council or its legal advisors; it comes from the Chamber of Commerce pressure on the City to disarm any further principled negotiations on a transportation plan. I recall what the Chamber's current executive leader said in public session at a Greenbrier public meeting a year ago when I asked him if this 3 vote lease option wouldn't be a transparent effort to avoid the Virginia constitutional provision. He said that the substitution of a lease for a sale would not pass the "duck test." The duck test, as he defined it for me and the audience was: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". He's right, this three vote sham doesn't pass the "duck test" and even the pro-road advocates will hear the quacking.

Rich Collins (electronic mail, November 24, 2003)