cant read the real facts. Some bozo's out there seem to think that the DEP's initial refusal to pay for the legal fight was the end of the issue. If they bothered to read the full story, as was presented in the NN this week, they might learn something. That is that the Mayor's request was written with the full knowledge and caveat contained therein that the DEP was NOT obligated to support the expenses until the Master Plan is adopted in 06. After that time, which will still be long before this fiasco is finished, they have no choice but to support us financially because its in their own law. Apparently certain A$$HOLES (no names mentioned but his initials are TD) havent learned that they should stop sending harrassing emails to people, particularly when their entire point is completely wrong and without merit, as usual. I guess we shouldnt expect too much from someone that drives up the steps instead of through the parking lot anyway.
I would suggest that people actually speak to those on the Highlands council to hear what they think about this project. The infrastructure of the Highlands Council is still being created and how they deal with these issues are handled.
It is far far from over and CC knows that. Currently the State has suggested that the exemption be "stayed" pending a complete evaluation, Rockaway is seeking "null and void" - either way the exemption is on weak standing at this moment. Upon re-review many difficult questions will need to be answered. I am sure I speak for many when I say it is very interesting that in nearly 20 meetings the applicant, CC, has yet to provide any environmental testimony. We all know why they have not and it is just a matter of time before they will have to address these important questions.
Best to all, Lisa
__________________
The truth wins out over slick PR and personal attacks.
The Christ Church Plan for the redevelopment of 140 Green Pond Rd is just too big for the area.
Thanks for the information concerning the status of the situation with the DEP. I was wondering what your thoughts are concerning CC's latest traffic plan (i. e., routing exiting traffic down Meriden Road.) Why do think CC changed the plan? Were they not able to get the county to retime the lights on GPR? Also, I have read in this forum that traffic may not be CC's problem. Is this true? Otherwise, I would think that they would have a hard time selling the Meriden Road solution. What do you think?
Hey guys, I hate to sound like a broken record, but I heard a mega pastor say that RLUIPA will not stand up when "safety" is an issue. I can't see anyway that church exiting via meridan can be safe for the children and residents of that neighborhood.
Since it is a black church thus having special privledge, I suspect that it will become imumbant for the Town to make the various traffic routes safe. Ireland will make sure that it is not his problem to solve.
Even if it were incumbant on the town to make the roads safe, which does not really make a lot of sense that it would be, it would take years to make meriden and the other back roads into the major thoroughfares that cc traffic requires. CC needs those improvements on day one hence there is good reason to deny the application on those grounds alone. This should stand legal challenges since to do otherwise would require the judge to order an unsafe situation to exist until improvements to the roads are made. In addition, making those improvements would worsen the situation during the course of making those improvements. I don't see how cc gets out of that one with their plan intact.
I am surprised that he has not thought of this - - - just make Meriden one-way. Same with Farber Hill Road. That gives two lanes out of the church. Done.
That would require all those people living on meriden, farber hill, beach glen, etc to drive miles out of their way to get to their homes. It's one thing to use one way streets in a city situation where distances to get around them is small but in this case the extra driving would be in terms of miles rather than blocks. I just don't see this being a very practical solution to cc's traffic needs, church or not.
One additional thought on this. It is obviously a safety concern is an ambulance, fire truck etc need to drive those extra miles to get to someone in need of emergency assistance. I would think this concern overrides RLUIPA.
That's true but I don't think there have been any judicial decisions rendered to date that required a town to acquiesce to a church's wishes when an overriding safety concern existed. Hopefully the town's legal advisors have assessed the merits of both parties likely arguments and our chances of prevailing in court and have acted accordingly.
