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 7 · from the scan, no model involved
the public want to do about local dumpster sites? And since the Federal Solid and Hazardous Waste Laws say that land disposal should be the “last resort,” do we even need to have a landfill here in the county? None of these questions have been answered, nor is there a mechanism yet set up by the Board to get these answeres.
The Board qi Supervisors must immediately stop Its headlong rush into wasteful and secret actions. It should form a dtizen/goverament group, as other counties have done, to determine the goals and alternatives which are in the public interest, and then move openly and efficiently to solve the problem. To continue upon its present path is to guarantee years of delay and exhorbitantly expensive law suits, with no guarantee of choosing the proper course.
JOHN H. PRESTON
Washington
a primary road, so that trash will be thrown anywhere else that’s convenient.
3. That it be located in a highly populated area. I can only assume that they chose this site to affect as many people as possible—your typical “the more the merrier” logic.
4. That it be looted in a high land value area so that when property surrounding the landfill devalues, everyone else in the county picks up the tab.
5. That the land be taken from an unwilling seller. This leads me to believe that it is easier to condemn land than to buy it outright.
6. That the public, in no way, be allowed to participate in the decisionmaking process. For obvious reasons.
So, that’s the list. I hope Pm wrong, but unless the Board is willing to open the subject up to public input and stop their move to condemn, this is all we can assume.
I only hope this list isn’t the one used in other counties in Virginia.
LINDA POSTELLE
Washington
71.6%