How Johnny Cash would vote on a new cou rthouse
The late Johnny Cash, one of the truly great American singer songwriters known as “The Man in Black” should have had a vote in deciding if Rappahannock County’s new proposed monstrous courthouse should be built.
The opening lyrics in his patriotic song, written during the tumultuous Vietnam War years (1974), “Ragged Old Flag” rings down with a resounding “no” on the flat- out desecration of our elegant and functional Washington Historic District buildings:
I walked through a county courthouse square On a park bench, an old man was sitting there I said "Your old courthouse is kind of run down" He said "Naw, it'll do for our little town"
To make it even more poignant since one- third of our county is in the Shenandoah National Park, the musical score backing up his song is the epic melody — “Shenandoah.”
Trying to understand the pressing need for a new 20,000 square-foot building adding at a minimum
$ 12 million to our tax burden is surprisingly difficult. All voters can appreciate funds committed to ensuring the safety and security for all of the pre- civil war existing buildings in Washington’s courthouse historic district. But there has been nothing one can find in writing that demands only a new building can meet the expressed needs for trials going forward.
If a judge has reservations about the current structural interior designs of the current footprint and perhaps traffic flow preceding a jury trial, then it should be presented with full transparency.
It is important for Rappahannock tax- paying citizens to understand any judicial reservations so consideration can be given to harmoniously designing additions added gracefully in the style of the existing building. Sadly so far the current progress of the public debate is only over the design and placement of a new building instead of why it is absolutely necessary to have only a new building.
Over the course of this public debate in the Rappahannock News, Ted Pellegatta and Fez have had political cartoons published.
One recent cartoon depicts an image of Rappahannock County losing students which is a sad and a very real possibility — with the potential plus up on our tax burden of $12 million for a monstrous new courthouse which is 400% larger. Voting citizens should have an opportunity to consider the tradeoffs on opportunity costs for important county- wide greater good initiatives that will not happen.
For example it is very interesting with census data research that there are approximately 1,000 unoccupied stand-alone homes. If a new courthouse is built it will more than likely be awarded to a single design and construction firm out of county.
However, with attention to help bring affordable houses to market, it could mean tremendous employment opportunities for all our local building trade workers such as carpenters, electricians, stone masons, plumbers, landscape teams and many others. Plus our realtors and real estate attorneys will have more houses to help sell.
A realistic dedicated political vision to bring tax- paying families with children into the county is very worthy, and just as important more houses can also provide opportunities for elderly fixed income citizens to affordably stay in Rappahannock to enjoy the natural grandeur that makes our place so special.
Just one example of directed political focus on affordable housing instead of constantly changing and I suspect growing expensive courthouse design debate could begin by increasing the resources of knowledgeable county employees to help families and private sector lawyers clear titles.
Ted Pellegatta, who has been connected to Rappahannock County for over 50 years made a very important and interesting point on having a simple direct question on the ballot in our coming November 2023 election cycle:
“Should we build a new courthouse or stay with the historic one?”
Let all voters decide before the contrived momentum for new carries the day and even though he is now for the ages we certainly know how Johnny Cash, “The Man in Black” would vote.
Trying to understand the pressing need for a new 20,000 square-foot building adding at a minimum $12 million to our tax burden is surprisingly difficult.