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 18 · column 2 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
maintained.
At the public hearing last Wednesday, Culpeper’s board chairman sought to have Three Flags put to a vote or, in the alternative, to direct the Planning Commission to move the proposal to a “fast track” with the commission holding a special meeting in November so the board could consider the reronings in December. But by a vote of 5-2, with Chairman Chase and Supervisor Harold Hook opposed, Three Flags was sent back to the Planning Commission without a request that the hearing and recommendation process be accelerated.
In the telephone interview this week, Mr. Chase pointed out that his 225 campaign contributors include opponents of Three Flags as well as the attorney representing those fighting the proposed development. “People on all sides of all the issues gave . . . Some are trying to single out one or two to make me look bad.”
If politicians ruled out campaign contributions from anyone who might have a special interest in the Board of Supervisors’ action, Mr. Chase said, they would have to refuse donations from:
• Merchants because they would benefit if the board removed the tax on merchants’ capital.
• Opponents of development, managed growth proponents and their attorneys.
• Farmers and other landowners who benefit from the use value assessment program.
• Livestock owners and owners of farm machinery who benefited when the supervisors removed the local property tax on those assets.
• School teachers because their salaries are controlled by the Board of Supervisors through the budget approval process.
• Landowners along secondary roads planned for improvement in the county’s six-year road plan because upgraded roads raise property values.
• Members of fire and rescue squads because the board controls the appropriations to emergency service organizations.
“And the list could go on and on,” Mr. Chase said. “If you followed that principle, elected public officials would have to finance their own campaigns.”
Mr. Chase emphasized that his acceptance of campaign contributions from the developers of Three Flags and the mobile home park and the single bidder on the countyowned property next to Culpeper Airport needs no defense. Voting on plans and proposals from people with whom an official has other bittiness deals or connections is an occupational hazard of government in small rural counties, according to Culpeper’s board chairman. “Keep in mind that rural counties are unique. That’s why we chose to live in them.” And he added: “If there’s a problem of conflict, I’ll abstain from the vote. I have before and I can again.”
90.6%