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 4 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
BOS
From Page A1
with the early draft of the 2007 budget, would have added $.02 to the real estate tax rate. The increased rate would have generating $300,000 to be used by the county to purchase the development rights on farm land for the purpose of preserving agriculture and farmland in Rappahannock County. Prior to Monday’s hearing, the proposed district has become a lightning rod for public attention, with petitions supporting and opposing the district circulating in the county since the first budget public hearing back on June 5. At Monday’s hearing, Sharon Pierce of the Rappahannock County Conservation Alliance submitted a petition with 180 signatures supporting the district. Jean Lillard, a resident of Flint Hill who has been active in organizing opposition, to the district countered with a petition of 584 signatures opposing the district.
Wagging the dog
The debate over the use of public funds to purchase development rights and the increased tax rate focused public attention on the Supervisors yearly budget process. The controversy over the district even overshadowed the rest of the budget, as evidenced by the stream of people leaving the courthouse after the Conservation Easement District had been voted down, but prior to the hearing for the actual budget.
Those in favor of the proposed Conservation Easement District, including McCarthy , phrased it as a way to keep Rappahannock’s taxes down in the long term while preserving the county
“This is not really a tax, it’s more like an investment” said Reed Fulsome, of Hampton District. This argument hinges on the idea that acres of open or agricultural land require less dollars in county services than acres occupied by residential space, keeping taxes down. Proponents of the district
93.9%