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 7 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor: (
Our recent county budget reports ] were quoted in your columns last week 1 as being in opposition to the land-use plan. Please permit us to set the record 1 straight. 1
1
We deeply regret that the Pied- , mont Environmental Council chose to , interpret our budget analyses as an at- ] tack on land use - particularly when we ■ took pains to disavow any opposition. True, we did note the obvious fact that the county lost a third of its land-tax base when it adopted land-use valuation - or LU V - the assessment of agricultural land at its value in farming rather than at its fair market value-and that this, along with inflation, accounted for most of the rise in the property-tax rate in recent years. The PEC responded in this fashion:
“In the last two years, opposition to land-use taxation has coalesced. In particular, those working for improvements to the county’s educational system have called for a re-examination of the use-value assessment program, arguing that tax money is being ‘lost to land use.’ Once the people of Rappahannock learn who’s shouldering the tax burden, will that opposition to land use dwindle? Will advocates of quality education stop regarding farmers as the enemy?”
We have not, we do not now, and we have no intention in the future to
95.0%