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 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
To the editor:
Now that the Board of Supervisors has done away with the automatic right of farmers to construct housing for farm workers (at the insistence of an anxiety-ridden couple), they have thrown the Sunday punch in favor of the ongoing movement to put an end to commercial fruit growing here.
This right was a carryover from the days when Rappahannock was at the forefront of a thriving fruit industry, with a number of local growers achieving national prominence as elected leaders of the state fruit industry. A recent county agent noted that for agriculture, Rappahannock is best suited for fruit horticulture and livestock. Of the two, fruit horticulture appears to have the best financial prospects. Past leadership in this county was astute enough to encourage it. RAPPAHANNOCK IS AS WELL SUITED TO FRUIT GROWING AS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.
The Rappahannock News, Nov. 20th edition, features Supervisor Newbill Miller succinctly and absolutely on target. It is obvious that Mr. Miller’s insight into agriculture is broad-gauged and comprehensive. In numbing contrast is the reported performance of Supervisor Estes supported by Supervisor Lane. Mr. Estes is in error on four points.
First, Mr. Estes, former apple grower, assures his colleagues that “during the three months that growers spray fruit trees, workers can’t go in the orchards.” In fact, under EPA regulations, re-entry is allowed within 24-48 hours. Since sprays are applied 8-10 times per six-month growing season, there is no impediment to orchard work
95.4%