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 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor:
At the recent forum sponsored by the Rappahannock Women’s Gub, all the political candidates declared themselves for “controlled” growth. “I asked, “What are the legal obstacles to a no-growth policy?”, a question which inspired the lady next to me to whisper loudly, “Naive!”
Only Col. Pete Luke volunteered an answer. He said that a no-growth policy is unconstitutional. He stated that we MUST have growth.
To the best of my knowlege, there is no article in either the State or Federal constitution which says that any city, town, county or state must grow. By ‘unconstitutional’, did Mr. Luke mean a tradition of Court decisions? What are the legal issues raised in these decisions?
To suggest a no-growth policy does not mean that we “lock the gates to newcomers." It would mean that newcomers wait till there’s a vacancy. First come, first serve—just as an apartment building keeps a waiting list when its facilities are full. Isn’t it just as reasonable to determine the desired population capacity of a geographical area as it is of a building?
This immediately raises the question of the size of our own families. Is there any legal obstacle to declaring, by referendum, a citizen desire to stabilize population and therefore a publicly stated recommendation on family size?
Mr. Luke pointed out there are two sides to this question:
96.2%