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 5 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
By JOHN L. MAROCCHI
Rappahannock News Contributing Writer
On May 21 there was a public hearing at the court house to consider changes proposed by the County Planning Commission to the Zoning and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Chapters of the County Code.
Every citizen should have been there. The issue involved is vital: Can we have what we want, yet retain property rights, the foundation of personal freedom? Or do we ignore the letter and spirit of our Constitution in the single-minded pursuit of any desirable end?
A pity such a difference exists. Both sides agree on the goal: preserve the beauty of our county. Is the difference real? You decide: Proponents of the changes say, in effect, “The end we seek overrides every other consideration.” Opponents: “Yes, the end is desirable, but not at the cost of the property of some for the benefit of all. Public benefits should come at public expense. Anything less is thievery.”
This discussion brings to mind what the French philosopher, Voltaire, might have said about it: “I disapprove of what you do with your property — absent a threat to your neighbors’ health, property or safety — but I will defend to the death your right to do it.”
The changes proposed are wrong in principle, costly, and nearly useless in practice. Some practical objections:
— Costs of building private driveways and houses will rise, about double for roads, which must meet standards for some public roads: a 12 foot pavement, 2 feet of shoulder on each side, plus side ditches. Existing driveways are 8 feet wide and have caused few problems.
93.6%