Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
READERS OF EITHER the News or the Piedmont Virginian know where we stand on the question of Life in the Coqntry. In fact, from where we sit/ there’s no question about it—living out in the fresh air, amid the greenery and unpolluted skies, beats sidewalks and suburbs every time.
It’s gratifying to know that a lot of people share these feelings. What is confusing is that some of the people who say they share our feelings about how nice it is out in the country come up with some weird formulas for keeping things nice. A few examples:
• People will agree that excessive highway constructions—especially of the super-highway category, such as Interstates—are dangerous to the preservation of rural life. But they don’t want to advocate stopping highway work until an alternative is offered, something like “rail mass transit.” Well, that might be an alternative, but it could be worse than highways. Each railway stop could become a mini-commuting center in itself, serving to spread suburban sprawl over an even wider portion of the Piedmont. Let’s think about that “alternative” somemore, please. • People will agree that too rapid growth can spoil an area-^the examples of Fairfax and Prince William are cited most often—but they don’t want to advocate “no-growth” without offering an alternative. The usual “alternatives” are to advocate “orderly growth,” as opposed to disorderly growth, and Good Planning. One champion of the Piedmont has even advocated “a great deal of additional growth,” if it is Well Planned. Well, whether it’s “orderly” or “well-planned” or not, when you’ve subdivided the landscape you’ve done away with a beautiful rural, agricultural setting, and we thought this was something we all wanted to preserve.
94.3%