Talk about “misunderstandings”! The author, Mr.Evans, misconstrued the whole premise of my editorial.
I stated that the Democrats have chosen to resort to sham trials of their political opponent because they are losing on the most important issues of the day ( see the comments above.) I then listed five reasons why this trial, in particular, was a sham trial. When you reread the entirety of my letter you will see the logic of my arguments.
So you don’t care about regulations or the need to follow them? There’s no need to return any land to the state. There are no penalties or consequences for conserving the meadow at 6 commerce road instead of destroying it.
What about the rights of the landowners next to and downstream from the developer's properties? And what about the rights of the public who currently owns the historic road? Your logic is flawed on many fronts. There are many wetlands and steep slopes on the 136 acres in question. Professional engineers familiar with the two properties assert that he'd be lucky to be able to build 40-50 homes under the regular zoning regulations, with 1 acre zoning.