Culpeper County, VA Denies Islamic Center Permit Request

Remember the investigatory journalism of the past. Few online journalists appear to write this way anymore. The online network of news has lowered the standards for reporting news. News has been distorted for ratings or readers. It was not enough to share facts. That does not cause the ratings to rise or readers to view the article. Now, social media is covered with articles, and those articles are short with one fact in a poorly written article. In some cases, it's barely a paragraph. Sometimes, articles conveniently forget to include facts to fit a narrative or an agenda they are pushing. I have a perfect example. There was a controversial vote in Culpeper, VA in April 2016. Recently, the DOJ decided to bring a lawsuit against Culpeper County. Below is the article that I read from NBC4, a local news network in Washington, D.C.

Article via NBC4

Justice Department Sues Virginia County for Blocking Islamic Center

• Culpeper County Board voted 4-3 to deny permit because it did not fit the requirements
• Room cheered when vote was denied
• The ICC, a group of about 15, wanted a proper place for prayer
• The property the group had purchased was an abandoned house surrounded by weeds

Facts via Culpepper Star*Exponent

Culpeper County Denies Islamic Center Permit Rrequest

• Culpeper County Board voted 4-3 to deny permit because it did not fit the requirements.
• Health Department found that the land doesn't support traditional drain field and no alternative was proposed and the land is not near public utilities
• Permit for pump and haul for hardship and emergency
• Those Board members who voted to deny found no hardship since this property had just been purchased and is not an emergency.
• Room cheered when vote was denied and were quickly rebuked for their actions

Conclusion

I think omitting the facts and relying only on a reference linking back to a previous story is lazy. When people click on a link to read an article, they are expecting to read the facts. They are not thinking that there is more to the story. They are not thinking that they would have to go to multiple sources to understand the context. Please, include the facts. We are not living in an age where we have to save disk space or the website can't handle a lengthier article. As a journalist, you can provide the facts on both sides, and not write articles that are fitting your narrative or agenda.

My Take

Now, let me tell you my thoughts on this whole ordeal. The ICC bought a property at an extremely low value with clear knowledge that the property would not pass a percolation test because of the poor soil quality. They apparently could not provide an accurate number of the amount of attendees, which would be required for sizing a septic system for pumping and hauling. The Culpeper County policy states that these permits are only approved by the elected board in accordance with its adopted policy only in cases “where it is shown that a unique, temporary situation exists which goes beyond simple hardship conditions.” I, personally, do not believe that it is a hardship when you buy a property with knowledge that it cannot perc. If a soil test was not done prior to purchasing the property, ignorance is not hardship.

There were 18 of these permit requests approved since 1995. These are not requested often. I would like to see the 1 permit that was disapproved, and the reasoning behind it as well. 

If the DOJ's lawsuit continues through the Trump Administration, I would be interested in whether a judge would see that the hardship clause was the reason for disapproval rather than religion. It would be great to buy cheap land, and then submit for a hardship pump and haul permit. I've seen some great property, located in a decent locations, but the property would not perc.

Drop the lawsuit and locate different empty lot that percs. It's not the religion; it's the lack of hardship.