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
IN NEARBY Loudoun, citizens of a small community which dates back to Colonial days are up in arms over the prospects of a large subdivision being plunked down on their doorstep. Their plight is not the first instance where a contradiction in Piedmont counties’ land planning approaches has been revealed.
It is policy in Rappahannock County—as it is in Fauquier and Loudoun, and Clarke, too, to name a few— to encourage growth and development around existing towns and communities, in the interest of preventing excessive housing development in the open countryside. In only slightly varying degrees of specificity—to dig up an old Watergate hearings word—Tt is also implicated that this policy would encourage a high - density type of development.
There’s only one big thing wrong with this policy: The people living in die existing towns and villages, by and large, want no part of high density development. They don’t want “in-filling” of their towns—they want to preserve the historic pattern of small town America, a pattern of single family residences, located on rather large lots, set back a generous distance from tree-lined streets. They want, in other words, lowdensity town and village patterns of living.
93.4%