Due to the weather, some customers may experience late delivery of The Roanoke Times. We apologize for the delay.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Professors Fogel and Chandler state: “The fundamental issues with the resolution as written are ones of need, scope and compliance with the code of Virginia.” What they may not be aware of is that the property rights resolution is still being refined with input from citizens, business owners and, hopefully, other Roanoke County supervisors. It is important to keep in mind that the process to create this resolution is not finished. Indeed, it will be stronger and more complete with community involvement.
Clearly, the resolution has to comply with state code (Dillon rule debate aside) and the scope of it cannot exceed the bounds of state code, though it may create new county guidelines or ordinances within those parameters.
However, the need for it has been apparent for many years in Roanoke County, and that is the real issue that needs to be addressed. As mentioned last week, the current planning process often negates the voice of the citizens, so is it in actuality redundant to affirm existing code in one place, affirm the intent of that code and expand on it as applicable to provide a consistent and declared process needful of citizen input?
The nature of government is always to claim increasing authority, and our pact with government is only as viable as we allow it. If we are to exercise our right to property, then it is imperative that we constantly demand that right.
If a properly constructed property rights resolution serves the citizens and gives them voice, then it is purposeful and fills a need. To put it into perspective, this has been a long and thoughtful process that has not been rushed like so many government mandates are. This resolution is ours, and it is time to make it happen.
Weather JournalSo ... WHERE is this storm?