THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2006

THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2006

Our View.

Saving face and

four cents

Monday evening’s second public hearing oh the proposed budget should have had food. The courthouse was packed and folks lined the stairwell as well. Major Chris Williams stood guard at the ■. tsf> of the stairs just in case the crowd got unruly, but they didn’t. Instead, many of them spoke in favor of or in opposii ion to County Administrator John McCarthy’s plan to add a two-cent tax to create a Conservation Easement district. ‘ Monies garnered would add to the county’s ability to purchase development rights from farmers who might otherwise cave in and sell off their land in the 1 iture to a developer rather than keep farming. His a i ategy was, and is, sound. If you want to keep this county pristine and drive along looking at green hills rather than housing developments or strip malls, you have to keep fueling that fire. Strict zoning laws alone may not be enough. Perhaps a plan that encourages, with monetary incentives by the county, a program to v 11 otect open space is not a bad idea. Board members theoretically supported the notion, out in the end the proposition failed unanimously to the a pplause of many and to the agony of others. With the hour growing late and the deed done, the majority of folks filed out. bonically, they didn’t stay for the next part of the . /leUiot meeting which was a proposal to increase the tax ret City three cents largely to fund the county’s building ' ! mow facilities for some of its agencies. I’hat, to the few that remained, was even more criti.1 than the proposed two cent tax which would have cre•d t he conservation easement district. Now, you get into a discussion of whether the county ; eminent should or needs to move offices away from the 1 own. And if a few folks hadn’t rallied against that ; i>, .ml, would it have gone through unnoticed. Once the country administrator and the supervisors o .’ i ie under fire for proposing a tax rate that would place oKeived unfair burden on the citizenry. In the end, that amount was lowered, h-j. let's see where we are. ' torn a proposed $.62 tax rate per $100 of assessed ■ ;'i '“ 'ate value (that would have included the conserva■ moment district), the new tax rate is $.58 per $100 1 ) he elimination of the two cent tax and a fiirther . at reduction. '■•Inst monthly board meetings are scantily attended : ’ business concluding in short order. In feet, last i budget passed without a whimper, i i s year there were issues that brought the citizenry n for ce and the supervisors listened and backed off, ■ : maybe they shouldn’t have. They are elected to rep> ut their districts to the best of their ability, to make t1 ■ ' turd decisions and to do so in the face of admiration mi adversity.