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 7 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
to new businesses in the county,” he said. “Is it the camel’s nose under the tent (of government intrusion)? Just because you get the camel’s nose doesn’t mean you get the whole camel.”
Amissville resident Howie Swaim followed on from a remark Konick had made earlier about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “As a business person, failing to plan is planning to fail. If we throw out the baby with the bathwater, (with this ordinance) at least we still have the bathwater.”
When reduced to their fundamentals, the evening’s arguments split between those who discourage an ordinance in the belief that government should avoid sweeping regulation in favor of case-by-case decisions on future outdoor lighting, which itself is a philosophical desire to keep government out of people’s lives, versus supporters of an ordinance, like Mitzie Young of Washington, who want to preserve the rural nature of Rappahannock County and feel “it’s getting very light here.”
As for Gwen Hays, who sat in silence for most of the discussion, the resulting no vote on the ordinance came neither as a disappointment nor a surprise. It confused her.
“Nobody spoke against the ordinance,” she said. “And three commissioners were ready to vote against it. I just don’t understand where they were coming from.”
The hearing on the lighting ordinance continues at the commission’s next hearing on June 16.
95.4%