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 5 · from the scan, no model involved
ONCE AGAIN, and on the basis of the evolving evidence, we would like to state our skepticism about wedding the county’s future too closely to some set of colored maps labeled, collectively, “Master Plan.’’
All of the arguments about Master Plans being “necessary,” for “growth control” and for qualifying for federal and state grants—we know all about that. We know all about the faith some bureaucratic types have in the abstract notion of “planning”; we certainly subscribe to the broadest concept of the need for, say, controlling development to where it is most desirable and manageable. Call it planning or zoning or site control, or subdivision regulation, it is obvious that things can’t be allowed to just pop up, like Topsy, and hope for the best.
But these formal, structured “Master Plans,” complete with stated “goals” and elaborate “criteria” formulas, complicated maps (which seem to have legal standing in one instance and none in another), extravagant “growth” projections, grandiose freeway and utility schemes—no sir, count us as being definitely unenthusiastic about that sort of “Master Plan.”
THE PIEDMONT Environmental Council planner who appeared before the Board of Supervisors last week summed up, unintentionally, one sort of planning pitfall we’d rather see Rappahannock County avoid. “We want to help Rappahannock answer three questions,” asa
95.3%