Newspaper criticized

Newspaper criticized

To the editor:

I am writing in response to the last two publications of the Rappahannock News, the April 24 and May 1 issues, in which several important issues were either inaccurately reported or printed on the editorial page as the official stand of the paper.

First, lets look at the editorial of April 24 where the editor concludes that because of a subdivision error committed by our temporary zoning administrator, many have glorified this ijpcu?.. . ment, almost proclaiming it the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel to come to Rappahannock. But many citizens of this county clearly disagree. And I cite the 1,054 signatures that were accumulated by members of a citizen’s organization of the County (Rappahannock Public Action Committee — RPAC) showing that many people in the county want something different than the restrictive yet pro-development Fauquier zoning ordinance which is currently undergoing possible revision.

I ask, sir, why do you believe we should enact this document which clearly shows that special interests will thrive as a result of it?

Where were you when the Planning Commission held two very large public hearings and five district meetings where only one meeting (the Hampton District) went for the proposed ordinance as the community wanted the downzoning of the controversial ski lodge property?

Where were you when countless questions went unanswered by the planning commission and Mr. McNear?

It should be obvious by now that this paper is the mouthpiece for the special interest lobbies in Rappahannock County, i.e. Realtors, sludge spreaders, etc.

Second point — the sludge issue. There never should have been a sludge hearing on April 30 had our commonwealth’s attorney and our Board of Supervisors only spent more time and paid more attention to their jobs. I would like to say here that I have a high regard for all of these men, but come on, guys, let’s get it together. One draws it up, five adopt it as law, and all pay little attention afterwards.

Our current moratorium only forbids the importation and spreading of sludge generated outside the county. It took local resident Robert Eastham to point this out.

Again, the public hearing was not on the question of accepting sludge as Ms. Hutchinson stated in her questions to the board, and you reinterated in the editorial. The question was on the disposal of Sperryville’s sludge generated by the new system, but Ms. Hutchinson’s first question concerned the acceptance of this dangerous substance, as in the Blue Plains product.

I wonder if the reason that The Rappahannock News supports the use of sludge is because the owner of the paper, Mr. Arundel, (a member of PEC) is in favor of it?

This is an important issue and the importance should not be compromised by this paper’s biased reporting practices. Controversies, by definition, have more than one side. Consequently, to present the public with only one side of a controversy is, by definition to show bias.

RONALD FRAZIER Amissville