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 5 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor
Landowners near the proposed landfill site on Route 621 are understandably unhappy about the actions taken so far by the supervisors. While admitting that the site tentatively propoaed by the supervisors has the advantage of being in the geographic center of the county, they claim that everything else makes this particular site the worst choice which could be made. They claim to have identified sites elsewhere in the county which would be mudi better for a landfill but so for have not publicized the exact location of those “better” sties. Understandably so, for the people near these others sites will quickly become as irate as they now are should the residents of Peyton Farm Estates manage to shove the landfill unto someone else. As usual, it depends on whose ox is to be gored. No one wants a landfill near them.
So what’s to be done? I sympathize with the people presently upset but I also sympathize with the supervisors in making a decision which must be made and which is bound to be most unpopular with some group of citizens, no matter what choice of site is made. However, we must never forget that our five supervisors asked us for the opportunity to make decisions for the county—both the pleasant and the unpleasant ones. There may be some guidelines for them to use in this case:
1. They must try to get the facts about the landfill site or sites as best they can and be governed by this factual data rather than by emotional outbursts from the present opponents or those of another proposed site, if this comes. In this connection, they should recognize that “expert” consultants usually send opinions favorable to the party, body or group which hires and paysthem.
2. The supervisors must, not be intimidated by threats of lawsuits. The
71.0%