I don't think VR is as critical for a WA especially since the laws of physics still prevail and the sensors are increasingly more sensitive. I have the following non-VR WA lenses and I don't miss VR on those: 24mm f/2.8 AIS/AFD, 28mm f/2 AIS, 35mm f/2 AIS/AFD & 35mm f/1.4 AFS.
I do have the 16-35mm f/4 AFS VRII and I'm extremely happy that it has VR and that's the primary reason I bought the lens. This is my travel, WA landscape and urban walk-about lens. It often is used in low light, interiors, after-dark walks, etc. Weight for me is an issue with extended travel. The fact that this particular lens includes the 35mm focal length makes it an ideal choice for this role. With VR, the f/4 aperture is not a detriment and f/4 is a logical choice for many of these images. Action is typically not an issue so again a larger aperture/higher shutter speed battle is not frequent.
So for my usage, this combination of aperture, size, focal-length range, VR and image quality makes sense and VR is the central feature that makes it a best choice for me. Not all users will see their needs met by this lens.
Roger It's still, ISO, aperture and shutter-speed, right?