Socialize

Fauquier Times-Democrat Receives Reality Check

reality_check_signBy FFC Staff

A recently published Fauquier Times-Democrat editorial stated that the supporters of HB 1430 are in the minority in Fauquier County.

As the official mouthpiece of the Fauquier County government, the Times-Democrat has repeatedly bashed the patron of HB 1430, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter, and has on more than one occasion suggested that he is out of touch with reality.

Perhaps the Editor may want to reassess the editorial position of the paper in light of a recent poll conducted on Fauquier Now, another online county publication which has maintained a general position of neutrality in these debates.

In the poll FN asks the following question:  How do you judge Fauquier’s ordinances regulating wineries and other agricultural businesses?

It appears that FN has closed this poll, and the results surely must add to the frequent bewildered amusement and cranial itching that seems to go on at the Times-Democrat, ever since county citizens have begun to stand up and defend their rights against the encroachments of government.

A total of 253 votes were cast over the period of several days and the results are as follows:

Fauquier’s ordinances are too restrictive: 206  (81%)

Fauquier’s ordinances are appropriate:  38  (15%)

I’m undecided:  9  (4%)

Now, we realize that this is not a scientific poll, but it seems pretty clear that the majority of citizens in Fauquier are actually on the side of the supporters of HB 1430, and not in lock step with the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Farm Bureau, the Virginia Association of Counties, Delegate Michael Webert, and the Fauquier Times-Democrat, all of whom have demonstrated by their words and actions that they firmly oppose the property rights of small family farmers.

 

Comments

comments

6 Responses to Fauquier Times-Democrat Receives Reality Check

  1. Priscilla King Reply

    April 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Well…everybody I talked to here in Scott County liked the original HB 1430. So did all the people in other parts of Virginia who send me e-mail. I don’t know anybody who didn’t like it…except corrupt officials of course! What was not to like?!

  2. Lee Sherbeyn Reply

    March 5, 2013 at 7:58 am

    It was a survey on restrictive ordinances for the wineries and agriculture.
    Where did anyone see HB 1430 mentioned?
    I agree we need to work on the ordinances and make them much better. I did not support the winery ordinance because I didn’t want to micro manage them.
    I also did not support HB 1430 because it was not a good bill. It was rushed and did not take into consideration what it could do to us farmers long term.
    I am a farmer, unlike 95% of the people that I see and speak with, that supported the bill.
    This only proves that the FFC staff will slant their stories in a way to make it appear that they are right and have the support of the majority. When in fact they do not.
    I would love to see FFC become a crusader for the truth and the whole truth. Report all of the story, not just the side that keeps people engaged and worked up. We have a local newspaper that will do that.

  3. Pingback: Why Fauquier County BoS Voted Against the Piedmont Environmental Council

  4. Scamperis Reply

    February 14, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Throw the bums out, !! You will be able to recognize them by their dress: Khaki high waters, blue shirts and wigeons, (brown) of course The dress of the self appointed Fauquier Fake elite. If they really knew something, Fauquier would be a better place. The world might be a better place!

  5. John M. Reply

    February 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm

    Does it really count when 200 of those votes were cast by the same person?

    • cturner Reply

      February 14, 2013 at 7:25 am

      It would change everything for sure, but I voted in the survey and it only allowed you to vote once, so what do you know that everyone else does not John?
      Are you saying you know the actual results were skewed; that they were actually 6 or 7 saying too restrictive and 38 saying appropriate?
      Where did you get this information, or are you just speculating?

Please Tell Us What YOU think.