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 8 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
►Suit
From Pace A-l
powers granted by the General Assembly,” he said, “so the violation of Dillon’s rule must fail.”
On the violation of the Agricultural and Forestal District Act, he said, the plaintiffs made “no allegations this is the only cost effective fertilizer available. There is no allegation they can no longer farm. This is only one particular type of soil enriching nutrient...This count should ! also fail.”
On the matter of due process Mr. Gilliam said there was “no suggestion there wasn’t adequate notice..I do not think the allegations are sufficient.”
On the final count that regulation in that area of preempted by the ' state, he said nothing in the regulations says this area is “reserved to the state.” He noted that in the case of regulations of pesticides, there are laws giving the “state board exclusive authority....The General As/ sembly knows how to write that language if that is their intention,” he said.
Mr. Foote said, “All of what Mr. Gilliam has said is interesting but not relevant to what we are doing today.” He said his clients claim that the action of the Board of Supervisors was “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable,” and that he was prepared to present evidence to prove that but not at a hearing on demurrers. He said the action of the Board of Supervisors was not based on “any credible scientific evidence.”
He said that on the issue of due process, he should not have to argue that the supervisors action is “confiscatory” if he can show it is “so beyond reason as to be unsustainable.”
He said that the Agricultural and Forestal District Act says a local governing body cannot pass laws “in a manner that unreasonably restricts” farming in such areas unless they can show a “direct relation to the public health and safety.”
85.4%