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 1 · column 3 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
By LOU HATTER
Rappahannock News Staff Writer
Fulfilling a promise he made April 4 at the board’s public hearing on the county’s comprehensive plan. Jackson District Supervisor Ellis Bingham last week formally requested the resignation of the district’s representative on the Planning Commission.
The request was contained in a letter Col. Bingham wrote to David Fannon, who has represented Jackson District on the county’s commission for 11 years.
His letter also reinterated his opposition to the plan as presented by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, which he expressed at length during the public hearing. The revision of the plan, which is required every five years and was four years overdue, passed by a 4-1 vote, with Col. Bingham dissenting, following the public hearing.
“Dave,” the letter states, “I cannot over emphasize my concern for what might happen in Rappahannock County if we do not analyze our situation properly and plan accordingly. However, what grieves me the most at this time, is the fact that you have been our planning representative in the District since 1978, and yet seem to know so little about the District. This is evidenced by the inaccurate information on the data sheet for Amissville, our largest village area. This lack of attention to detail can only indicate to me your lack of concern with our District.
“If the authority were vested in me I would have removed you from your position as District representative immediately. Since I do not have this authority, however, I am compelled to ask you for your resignation. Should you choose to disregard this request then I would suggest that you make every effort to be factual about Jackson District in the future. Furthermore, the data regarding Amissville should be updated prior to final publication of the comprehensive plan.”
At the public hearing, Col. Bingham objected to the passage of the plan with statistics he described as out of date. In his letter he pressed that point, saying, “How we can develop realistic goals that will work ... for the common good of the County and our residents, without pertinent data, is beyond my comprehension.”
In the letter, Col. Bingham restated his objection to the characterization of agriculture as the dominant indus- - try in the county. He said that, "The thing that bothers me most about the plan is the obsessive concern with perserving the agriculture industry in the county.”
Noting that agriculture throughout the nation is facing great changes, Col. Bingham maintained that the pressures are particularly acute in rural counties near metropolitian areas, like Rappahannock. “At a certain point it no longer becomes feasible for the owner/operator to continue the agriculture operation as before. When he decides to sell out he wants to obtain top dollar for his land and that might mean subdividing into smaller acreage. Rappahannock County is rapidly approaching this condition.”
In the letter. Col. Bingham cited as an example the recent sale of the Foster family's farm near Flint Hill. Referring to an interview Herbert Foster gave the Rappahannock News, Col. Bingham said that Mr. Foster gave the lack of labor and its cost as the principle reasons he decided to sell part of his family’s holdings. “He stated that: ‘Agriculture in Rappahannock County is no longer a viable business.’ This statement,” Col. Bingham said, “from a former County Supervisor and lifetime residentSee
LETTER, p. 16
82.1%