Sandman weighed in on side of town proponents

Date published: 12/10/2002

Ken Tillman's letter ["Editorial distorted what happened at planning meeting," Nov. 21] left out many points about the Spotsylvania Planning Commission public hearing on the Town of Chancellorsville and was as one-sided as the editorial he refers to ["Spotsy Railroad?," Nov. 8].

One thing Tillman neglects to include is that the commission knew, in advance, about the large number of people who wanted to speak at the hearing but didn't make any changes in venue to accommodate the large number.

He also leaves out the attempt by Chairman Wayne Ervin to change the procedure for the meeting and allow proponents and opponents to alternate giving their arguments.

Four of the first five speakers for this development consisted of a woman who gave her reasons for supporting the project, followed by her husband, son, and daughter, who basically said that they agreed with their wife/mother on the matter, adding no new information to be considered.

Why is it logical for opponents to be heard second, while the members fight off sleep due to the late hour?

The proponents gave their opinions and left the hearing room, presumably to go home, while the opponents had to wait their turn. Wouldn't it have been common courtesy for the proponents to stay and hear the arguments against the project?

Does this say that they didn't care, or was it just too late for them to stay?

Mike Chapman

Arlington

Read more stories about Spotsylvania
Date published: 12/10/2002