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 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Letters
Viewpoint
on budget
To the editor:
As indicated by your “Letters to the Editor” section of February 6, county budget time is indeed once again at hand, and, as usual, with a drumbeat of foreboding statements concerning the salaries of the county’s public employees in the next county budget about which absolutely nothing is as yet known. But since the Platts and a member of the RCEA wish to get off to an early, anticipating start on this annual controversy, I will share a few things that are on my own miikL -
Charles and Heleii Platt, last spring and in their (current letter, made several points, one of them valid and others, I think, of dubious validity. First, they admit that the adoption of Land Use Valuation in Rappahannock had a serious impact on the county’s tax base and ability to raise revenue. They further admit that LUV taxation inevitably involved the transfer of tax burden to property owners “not protested” by LUV since, as they say, the tax on real estate is the only significant source of local revenue now left. But the Platts choose not to draw, and act on, the obvious conclusions about LUV taxation — its inequity and the seriousness of its negative fiscal impact on the county.— considerations which spurred me to protest against it to the Supervisors in public meeting a couple of years ago. In spite of their own figures which they cited, the Platts apparently still would like to shrug off the consequence^ of LUV for education and other public
90.0%