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 4 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
who have not signed the applications, then the districts have holes and are not contiguous, argued Carter. He maintained that both the assistant attorney general and experts on the AF District legislation believe land within an AF District . must have contiguous boundaries.
Supervisor E. C. Hooper immediately challenged • Carta’s contention, arguing that only big landowners would be eligible for an AF District if the boundaries had to be contiguous. He noted that a landowner could not be put into a district against „ his will but added that a district could be created around a piece of property that didn’t belong.
Purcell noted that the law was silent on whether properties within a district had to have contiguous boundaries. No where in the AF Districts Act does it say properties have to be contiguous and no where in the law does it say they don’t have to be, he maintained.
“Stupidly Written”
Attorney H. Watkins Ellerson III, member of the AF District advisory committee appointed by the Supervisors, announced that he had voted against approval of all three district applications. “The reason why I voted against them was because I think the law was stupidly written...It has a valid propose,’’ he agreed. However, Ellerson added, “I advise deferment of action until the legislature reports out an act that makes sense...The safe course of action is to wait until after the next session of the legislature.”
Supervisor Dixie Colvin moved that all three applications be denied for 12 months. Chairman Gordeii voted with Colvin, stating that he failed to see the rush to protect farm land in view of the lack of intense urban pressures in Orange County. Supervisors Robert Edwards and Hooper voted against the motion but for different reasons: Hooper because he supports immediate approval of all three applications and Edwards because he wants a formal Attorney General opinion on whether use value taxation will apply to forest lands within a district.
With a tie vote, the Supervisors agreed to place consideration of the AF District applications on the agenda for the next meeting of the Orange Board, scheduled for December 13.
89.4%