‘Culpeper Creep’: You can have it
Wow, a lot has changed since I put in my two cents on the Rappahannock growth debate. That was only two years ago, but sure enough, the winds of change Ms. Sheila Gresinger waxes about (“Adjust your sails,” June 3) have ushered in the Trojan horses Mr. Ron Maxwell warns about (“Akre’s Trojan Horse,” June 3).
So now, the beautiful “steady state economy” I once congratulated the county for (“Today’s Rappahannock: Good for citizens, state, and the USA,” May 23, 2019) is threatened from inside and out. There’s “the biggie” out at Clevenger’s Corner, the billionaire “offering” up a euphemistically named “commons,” an ex-rector wanting dispensation for 2-acre lots, and the evercloser menace of “Culpeper Creep,” with an example right at the Rappahannock line near Boston!
Like Mr. Nol Putnam points out in his June 17 commentary, “change is coming to Rappahannock.” Unlike Putnam, though, I’m in the camp that says we don’t have to do what all the other money-grubbing, sheep-like counties to the east have done, and just open wide for the drill, like a kid at the dentist. If development couldn’t be fought, those who would have us believe in some sort of manifest destiny for the Rapp wouldn’t need to chime in at all. Yet they do — Putnam and Mr. Jennings Hobson (“Change is the order of existence,” June 17) and others — because they know a democratically-run county can keep development in check if only a majority prefers it that way.
The way I see it, the land as it is, where it’s left and without development, is like money in the bank. It’s real savings, too — as real as you can get — not an inflated money supply pumped out by the Federal Reserve to “stimulate the economy.”
So then, just because the land prices increase and we can make a quick buck of Fed money, should we sell out (figuratively and literally) and lose what we’ve saved? Start subdividing and get like the crowded counties? Then what happens to property values? Not to mention the “little things” like quality of life.
Oh, we know the argument. “It’s only a few houses. Only a few more people and businesses and roads. Nothing much will change.” It’s the same slippery slope that explains the relentless creeping of Culpeper and Fauquier Counties (not to mention the total undoing of Loudon). Once the rector gets his dispensation and the “Commons” get capitalized, it’s game over and devil take the hindmost.
Beyond the slippery slope, Mr. Gorfein’s argument in his June 10 commentary (“The future most of us want”) about the limited “footprint” of the proposed Rush River Commons was a Florida swamp-seller if there ever was one. The footprint of a development— any development—goes far beyond the boundaries. For starters there’s the lumber and steel that go into the structures. That means a footprint in the forest and another at the mine. There’s the sand and gravel for driveways and parking lots; footprints in the form of sand and gravel pits. How about electricity? Footprints in the coalfields, oil fields, wind farms, and solar arrays. What about the ebb and flow of traffic to and from the development? No, it’s never just “a” footprint. It’s more like a whole trail system full of footprints, many of which never go away.
The very first guest on my Steady Stater Podcast was Laurel Hanscom, the CEO of the Global Footprint Network. If you really want to know about footprints, give her a listen. You’ll learn about the “ecological footprint,” the footprint calculator, and Overshoot Day. As not just Rappahannock residents, but U.S. citizens sharing the planet with others, we might think again about the whole notion of “development” at this point in history.
In fact, why not think twice about “thriving,” “prosperous,” and “progress?” If they’re thriving in Loudoun County, why do so many of them want to move here? What’s prosperous about liquidating your precious land and losing such real savings? If that’s “progress,” count me out.
Until then, my vote is against the proposed “commons,” Sperryville dispensations, and Culpeper Creep beyond Boston!