present site opponent* and others who - may take

present site opponent* and others who - may take their places elsewhere must cease this intolerable business of publicly threatening lawsuits against the county if they don’t get their way, as was done in the courthouse on Dec. 8 and elsewhere. Don’t they realize that they are threatening to sue themselves as taxpayers along with the rest of us? Are we all to adopt these tactics of legal threats if we disagree with landfill locations, zoning ordinances, land-use taxation rates, Ag/Forestal Districts and everything else? Are we all part of the county body politic ware we aliens apart from it?

8. The elected supervisors must, however, accept the reality of political reaction to this and to every other controversial decision they make. While it is not acceptable to threaten lawsuits against the county for capricious reasons or self-serving interests alone, it is acceptable, even commendable, to hold local government politically accountable for actions which one perceives to be contrary to one’s own interests and/or those of the commonwealth. This is the more civic stance adopted by the Rappahannock Public Action Committee on the zoning issue, which I recommend heartily to the concerned citizens of Peyton Farm Estates. Our supervisors can count noses and they will. The District of one Supervisor has been “tapped” for a landfill; the Districts of four Supervisors have not been, as yet.

The governing body is sworn to act in the best interests of the county as a whole; at the same time the voters expect them effectively to represent the District electorate which put them in office. Sometimes it is not an easy job to reconcile these two duties and perhaps a little more appreciation of that fact might be helpful at this point in the landfill controversy.

ROBERT W. EASTHAM

Flint Hill