The
Uglification of Virginia
In
the July 14 edition ("The
Uglification of Virginia"), Bacon's
Rebellion argued that scattered, low-density growth
sprawl was ruining Virginia's scenic, rural vistas
and, ironically, threatening a key component of
urban quality of life. Most, but not all, readers
agreed.
Stop
Illegal Signs
For
years I was an activist removing signs in the VDOT
Right of Way in Loudoun County. Along with a few
others, we removed tens of thousands of signs -- we
stopped counting at about 30,000 and may have
removed as many as 50,000. We also took many to
court and had fines assessed against them, including
the two gubernatorial candidates. That was fun, but
a waste of time. Since 1998, I have been busy with
our local PAC, Voters to Stop Sprawl.
The most effective
technique is to ask a special grand jury to find the
illegal sign poster to be a "public and private
nuisance - check the Virginia code if you are not
familiar with this.
§
33.1-373. Advertising on rocks, poles, etc.,
within limits of highway: Any person who in any
manner (i) paints, prints, places, puts or affixes
any advertisement upon or to any rock, stone,
tree, fence, stump, pole, mile-board, milestone,
danger-sign, guide-sign, guidepost, highway sign,
historical marker, building or other object
lawfully within the limits of any highway or (ii)
erects, paints, prints, places, puts, or affixes
any advertisement within the limits of any highway
shall be assessed a civil penalty of $100.
Joe
Maio
maio@mediasoft.net
This
is Progress?
I
really appreciate your opinion on the plight we call
sprawl. I am disgusted by the changes that I am
seeing all over the west end of Richmond. There
seems to be a general lack of common sense in the
designs of the neighborhoods. I have an easier time
driving around in the Fan than I do driving around
the new neighborhoods in the West End. Have we
forgotten how to create neighborhoods that are bike,
bus and walking friendly? It's bad enough that we
are losing so much nature, but we are replacing
nature with poorly built homes in poorly designed
neighborhoods.
On
this topic, William Faulkner said: "They call
it progress but they can never tell us where it's
headed, and they never bother to ask the rest of us
if we want to go along for the ride."
James
Hickman
Interim
Director of Workforce Development
Community
College Workforce Alliance
jhickman@jsr.vccs.edu
Learn
from Vermont
You're
article is right on the money. Thanks. I just got
back from Vermont, a state that has outlawed
billboards and done a fairly good job of controlling
sprawl. I wish some of the people who run this state
could visit Vermont for a few days.
Bob
Adriance
McLean
BAdriance@BOATUS.com
Whatever
Happened to Property Rights?
Outside
of his own home and surroundings (which he
feverishly works to protect), no one seems to know
or care anymore about private property rights. Such
ignorance threatens our rights to own and use
property — even our existence as a free nation.
It
is bad enough when liberals are ignorant of the
truth about private property (that is one reason why
they are liberals) but it is especially depressing
when conservatives join the attack on private
property and his column is disseminated by
environmentalists. The article in question by James
Bacon warns of the loss of beauty of Virginia
landscape through the nasty habit of converting it
to human use.
No
reasonably sensitive person likes the wholesale
flattening of hills for the constructing of huge
buildings or parking lots but none of the critics of
development mention that ownership of such land is
an "inalienable right." By such ignorance
we fall prey to the ugly sin of covetousness — of
trying to "own" that which is not our own.
Because I find a particular landscape beautiful does
not mean I have the right to preserve it for my
viewing— unless I own it. Unfortunately, for
preservationists, we have the well-established
principle that what a man owns is his own — not
anyone else’s. It is not the government’s right
to take the land through restrictive zoning nor the
private citizen’s right to give it away through
permanent conservation easements.
Not
only is covetousness a serious sin but acting on it
violates our Constitution as well. By depriving
future generations of private citizens of the right
to own lands we destroy an inalienable right as
guaranteed by our Constitution.
"Inalienable" means the government cannot
take it away. Even a citizen has no right to trade
it away; He certainly does not have the right to
trade away the land rights of his grand children.
The
Virginia Declaration of Rights described the
"means of acquiring and possessing
property" better than it appeared, as condensed
by Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of
Independence. The substitution of
"happiness" for property cost us something
of the understanding of property rights. Here is the
original:
"That
all men are by nature equally free and
independent, and have certain inherent rights, of
which, when they enter into a state of society,
they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest
their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and
possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety."
Note
that the author, George Mason, did not say
"...except when owning and using such property
messes up the 'viewscape' of rich liberals by
putting houses on ridge tops."
That
brings up High Top: Environmentalists are currently
incensed over the possibility that some 900 acres in
Greene County near High Top Mountain would be sold
off in parcels for development. Under current land
use laws some 36 houses could be built there. And
that, to environmentalists, is an outrage. Thirty
six houses on 922 acres represents a density of one
house per 25 acres. Not exactly high density. So
what is wrong with it? It seems to be a breach of
the principle that no human must be allowed to own
and use mountain land, unless it is by the
government for use by rich liberals to look at.
Environmentalists want either for government to buy
it outright or for some conservation group to buy
it, as one step closer to government’s owning all
of the pretty-to-look-at land.
Notice
that they are not upset by "exploitation"
of land for human habitation in the pine flats of
Louisa County. There the servant class can live out
of sight. Only they will have to be bused in to cut
grass for the aforesaid rich liberals in their mountain
hideaways.
In
this hatred of human use — except for use by rich
liberals— environmentalists join in with the rich
folks from D.C. and Richmond who, 70 years ago,
drove the mountain people out of most of the Blue
Ridge mountains so other rich city people could
profit from the subsequent land grab., and still
other rich city people could then drive the length
of the mountain chain and enjoy the views.
The
idea that they are "saving" the land for
nature is a lie. Animals could care less what
"view" they are seeing and plants, rocks
and dirt are totally unaware. Only rich liberals
care about the "viewscape." Only rich
liberals do not have to care about reality, like
where will all the ordinary (inferior) people live?
Real
people would only like a place to live and work.
Mike
Smith
Ignorant
Hillbilly
Turkey
Ridge
TurkeyRidge@Hotmail.com
NoVA
Stricken by Flaming Watermelon Truck
What
on earth was the Fahl piece about ("The
Growth Control Debate," July 28, 2003?)
Something “retro,” making believe it’s
the 1960’s? On
a June visit to NoVa, we encountered traffic stopped
in both northbound lanes of U.S. 29 south of
Warrenton. A
friend later told us that a watermelon truck from
North Carolina had caught fire, that I-66 wasn’t
backed up that far … yet.
Square
mile after square mile of detached houses on acre
and half-acre lots, dumping more traffic onto
congested arterials, is the problem, not the
solution. The
wastelands reserved for possible commercial use make
the landscape even more depressing.
What the last 40 years have created is a pseudo-urban
settlement pattern that is so thin and brittle that
it can be brought to a halt by one flaming
watermelon truck.
Tinkering
and continued subsidy of 60’s-style subdivisions
aren’t the answers.
How about some attention to the deep defects
in governmental structure that keep the
now-alienated public from dealing with the mess?
Joe
Freeman
Lynchburg
JosephFreeman@msn.com
The
Ignorance of Youth
Alina
Massey’s writings ("Love-Hate
Relationship," July 28, 2003) aptly
illustrate the ignorance of youth, particularly
youth infected with an education at a modern-day
socialistic university. She balks at the
conservative, stable values that have provided her
with the opportunity to take four years of her life
and in a non-productive mode while many others were
struggling to make a living.
Ms.
Massey’s opines that Richmond should be more like
New York. In case she hasn’t noticed, many people
have come here because they found the Richmond area
more agreeable than the ‘Rotten Apple’. If the
big city meets her needs better than our central
Virginia paradise, may God be with her as she
pursues her dream. Just don’t try to bring me
along into it.
In
a blithe misunderstanding of the ways in which the
world really works Ms. Massey rightly chastises the
city for spending an unconscionable amount of money
on a performing arts center no one will use. But,
then, she thinks that the money extracted from the
taxpayers should be spent on events young people
would attend. As a confirmed free-marketer, I would
have to respond that if the young people who have
nothing better to do than spend Daddy’s money are
not willing to spend it to support such activities,
we as productive citizens should not be taxed to
supply them with entertainment.
She
thinks Richmond is loosing its creative people, but
this is not the case. It’s losing people who want
a less principled society. This does not always
equate to creativity. She fusses about business
dress codes and lack of recognition of homosexual
partners as if these things are wrong. If New York
makes her happy, may she enjoy her time there… but
don’t bring their problems down here.
Larry
Miller
Richmond
richmondeagle@comcast.net
--
August 11, 2003
|