The discussion of city officials: instead of 648 is the number of residents who oppose the location of the BGA, reduced to 600. Then it does not matter whether or why they are against the project. Mr. Blanchard (according to the newspaper with his own opinion) agrees with the opinion of Mr. Ober. Man (men's) has dealt so intensively with the arguments was (always for the project, ran for the operator always started right away) and just closes his eyes and sees no more arguments that speak against a BGA (increased traffic, odor, noise, risks, rising prices for energy and food ... the smells of nepotism). Own arguments, as no more manure transport, have been refuted. "Therefore, the manure hit by the stables" Who has the operator in control? Until now, sewage sludge, where he was also intended to give no more. Should he be fermented with? The operator contradicts itself again and again: first it is, is the panacea Pellez = no longer financially viable to 2009 and still being built, where before 2009 can not be produced?
Planning is also contradictory. They want to alleviate the traffic problem and the success is low. Initial attempts to traffic from the agricultural and Brennereiweg Klützer keep St., then to lead it through the day 21 runs Pellez Klützer road. Brennereiweg allegedly attributable to the more funding that must be repaid expected. Has anyone really been asked or is that just politics, a means of pressure. What then? So there are going to continue through the Brenereiweg because we (ie the city) is bankruptcy. A nerve! The citizens have paid the street, pro rata, and the farmer a cent. So, the operator could also something "GIVE" and not only demand and claim. No residents have needed a 40-tonne road and is now that the city has no money, will again have to pay? Are they still continued to be sold to citizens continue to betray and handled ...?
Does the city have learned nothing from the CD drive. As the "big one" policy, always blow money and again after paying the bran man
0 comments:
Post a Comment