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 5 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Whereas it might i jar that a town sewer would be a charitable boon to low income families whose septic systems may be in disrepair or who must rely on more primitive facilities, there is the distinct possibility that the major beneficiary of this proposed project would be, instead, the largest and wealthiest business venture in Washington.
As it is, the “Inn” has a sizeable tract of real estate tied up as its drain field. This, I am told, is the large lot behind the Post Office: certainly, in the eyes of its owners at least, too valuable a tract for its present use. A town sewer, quite obviously, would liberate this land for more lucrative developments.
Fuelling my suspicion that this proposed sewer would be, in the main, a landowner-subsidised asset to the “Inn” is the fact that one of the “Inn’s” owner had manged to be elected to the Town Council. From what I read in the paper some years ago, one would think he’d have been permanently disqualified from the post. He was not, however, and is now in a position to manipulate town politics to further his own ends.
I do not live in the town of Washington, but I own a house on a lot on Piedmont Avenue. This lot has a very satisfactory septic system, the drainfield of which, as do many drainfields on their respective lots, serves also to water and nourish the land. The land utilises and purifies this waste water. To pump it all into the Rush River would be a crime against the environment as well as a theft from, and financed by, the landowners. Let’s not let this happen.
JOHN CADWALADER, JR.
Woodville
95.3%