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 4 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
If saving farm land and preserving the agricultural industry is the issue in Goode’s rezoning, then the job should have begun then. We don’t buy the argument that the Massie-Lindgren subdivision was different because the tracts were 25 acres instead of five. The land—and more of it—was just as effectively removed from farming. It may be possible to farm 25 acres, but we’ve yet to see it done.
If the impact on services is the issue with Goode’s development, that fight, too, should have begun with the Massie-Lindgren subdivision. Approximately the same number of lots were involved, as with Goode’s proposal.
On the other hand, granting Goode’s rezoning would reinforce the precedent of approving development and make it harder to turn down the next one. Someone, somewhere, has to discover just how far the Virginia courts will go in allowing a community to determine its future: how it wants to grow and when it can call a halt to development in order to protect the quality of life from being irreparably damaged.
We can’t believe that the courts would hold the individual Rappahannock Supervisors liable if they voted on the rezoning according to what they felt was best for the county rather than according to the hard and fast regulations set down in county ordinances.
We’ve heard legal advise—both here and in Fauquier County—that holds the Supervisors are personally liable for suit on any vote not in compliance with county ordinances. But no one has ever been able to give us an instance of such personal liability actually being incurred. And until they do, we’ll go on believing that Virginia’s judges are smart enough to realize that this kind of, action would turn local government upside down.
If the Supervisors voted to deny Goode’s rezoning, we think the decision would be overturned in the courts should the developer choose to appeal. However, the county could gain valuable—though expensive— information on what does constitute legal grounds for denial that would benefit future rezoning decisions.
If it soulds like we’re still fence straddling, it’s because we are. We’re no closer to making up our minds on Goode’s proposal than we were two months ago. We’re glad that it is the Supervisors decision and not ours. They are in an unenviable position.
86.3%