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 10 · column 3 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
He maintained that the AF District tax question is a “collateral issue to the policy.” The primary question, according to Purcell, is "do we want to keep what we have?”
The tax break allowed on land in an AF District is “an incentive to preserve...aimed at encouraging people to keep their land uses down so we will benefit from the result,” said Purcell. “Assuming it’s constitutional, is this too great a price to pay?” he asked.
Agriculture and tourism are the two biggest industries in Orange County, stated Richard Sanford, one of the applicants for three AF Districts. Agriculture is dependent on the availability of adequate land resources and tourism relies heavily on the beauty of open spaces, he maintained. Both industries would benefit from the approval of AF District applications, he told the Supervisors.
Sanford maintained that the loss of agricultural land to other uses, a matter of concern now, will become a crisis later. “I hope somehow you will see fit to preserve and protect’’ Orange’s agricultural and forestal lands, he stated.
ThoaeAffected In Favor
Bill Speiden, also an applicant for an AF District, informed the Supervisors that ;he had contacted all Iand' owners in the area of the proposed Speiden district, missing only a few who lived outside Orange County. “We have not found one who had any objections to living next to an agricultural district.” Speiden noted that approval of the three districts would be a guarantee to the county that it wouldn’t have to bear additional costs for services on 1,900 acres.
Randolph Colvin, the third applicant, urged approval of the districts as a tool to help fanners keep on farming. “We have enough gamble with uncertain markets, consumer demand and of course weather conditions” without adding pressures from increased development, be maintained.
Opposition from
Commonwealth Attorney
Orange Commonwealth Attorney Henry Carter, in arguing against approval for the three applications, insisted that any land within an AF District would be eligible for use value taxation. He questioned whether land in any of the three proposed districts was subject to growth pressures and expressed doubt as to the agricultural significance of some of the property included in the applications.
Carter maintained that property had been included within the proposed districts without approval from the property owners.
Purcell and the three applicants for the districts assured the Supervisors that this was not the case. The applications for AF Districts covered only property of owners who had signed the petition for the district, they emphasized.
Unless the districts include property belonging to persons
86.6%