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 2 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Hazel
Tier III
From Page A1
of the designation and the potential that the definitions, regulations and requirements may change in time. All who spoke, however, emphasized that they do not favor development around the river or relaxing local standards for water cleanliness. Some felt it was too draconian and might hurt prices. Peter Hansen of Sperryville commented, “there is a big difference between limiting development and preventing development .... Not being able to develop down the road will result in lower values.”
Other opponents focused upon the loss of local control Susan VandenTbom asked, “Is there currently a threat to the river in Rap? What is the likelihood of development? If there is no threat to it and the designation would be permanent, why subject ourselves, our children and grandchildren to it?”
At least two speakers likened turning over local authority over the river to the ejection of residents from their property in the 1930s during the creation of Shenandoah National park. While both relate in a highly indirect fashion to federal authority, there is no substantive similarity between the two situations.
It would seem that those sad times were brought in for dramatic effect and to invoke a spirit of hostility to government authority.
In favor
Several local residents spoke in favor of Tier HI status, trying to allay the concerns of opponents.
Wakefield resident and Piedmont Environmental Council representative Sarah Gannon pointed out that, “Tier III standards have been the same for twenty years... if there were to be a change, there
91.7%