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 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
Editorial
Joint planning:
An idea whose time has come
We think the suggestion advanced by Supervisor Mike Massie that one member of the county’s and planning commission serve jointly on both boards is an excellent idea.
The county’s comprehensive plan explicitly calls for any land-use decisions involving areas around the Town of Washington to be explored and solved jointly by the town and the county.
Recently, there have been two cases; the swap of the Town Hall and the library and the question of movig the town-county boundary, which have required close cooperation between the two governments.
In several instances, the cooperation which both governments seem to seek has almost been sabotaged because one body or the other received incomplete or erroneous information about deliberations being undertaken by the other group.
That cooperation could be fostered even more, and controversy probably diminished, if the two planning bodies shared two common members between them. That way, each commission would be aware of the issues before the other, rather than waiting until a potentially controversial question surfaces before getting together for joint consideration.
More and more, there will be land use and planning questions which involve both the town and the county. Given the location of the county’s governmental offices within the town, the mutual concern is inevitable.
What is not inevitable, and what joint membership might go a long way toward solving, is conflict between the two jurisdictions. History teaches that many times conflict is rooted in misunderstanding, and misunderstanding is fostered by opinions and stories rendered second-hand.
If the county’s planners had a member present at town meetings, and vice versa, a first-hand report of the deliberations could be delivered to the other body. Such a report could also highlight the concerns expressed by the members.
And, with someone present at the meeting, questions could be answered and potential conflicts perhaps diffused with a simple explanation.
The entire idea seems to us, at least at first glance, to be one which has a lot of potential positives and no negatives. The only concern we see, in fact, is finding people who would be willing to volunteer the additional time which serving on another board would entail.
But if that’s the worst that can be said of the proposal, we think that it deserves serious consideration.
82.6%