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 5 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
through condemnation to go back into private ownership, opponents of the land swap contended that the deal violated both state and federal law.
Jacobsen’s announcement on the withdrawal of the exchange proposal did not address any of the questions raised although he acknowledged possible legal difficulties in a letter to the Rappahannock supervisors.
In correspondence addressed to Jacobsen and National Park Service Direction William Whalen, Mark Raabe joined other opponents to the land trade in citing legal obstacles. Raabe, a Rappahannock land owner and counsel to the House Commerce Committee, quoted from section 5 of Public Law 95-42 which states that the Secretary of the Interior may revise national park system boundaries through acquisition by exchange of lands, waters or interests “except that in exercising his authority under thisclaused 1) the Secretary may not alienate property administered as part of the national park system in order to acquire lands by exchange.
“It is surprising, to say the least, that officials administering the park lands would either disregard or be ignorant of a law, directly affecting them, which was passed just one year ago," wrote Raabe. He also noted that the Virginia Code, section 7.1-22, as amended by Chapter 211 of the 1976 Acts of the General Assembly, would negate the proposed exchange.
Law Explained
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Rap
82.4%