Thanks for the response. That said, most of that letter seems to be an ad hominem attack on the this guy Moot and relatively little about the substance of his concerns about the fiscal viability of this thing. Also, it sounds like it was written by a trial lawyer [and trust me, I *know* what they sound like ] I'm not sure how you would know which papers decided to run or not run letters written by the guy, or anyone else. Are you guessing or do you know? I guess I'd love to see more of a response about the substance of what he says about the numbers and viability as oppossed to ripping on the guy personally (which may all be true, but isn't really relevant).

About the battle of the recusals: I was told that the anti-track people *did* ask one non-elected board member to recuse him/herself, (can't remember if it was a man or woman) but that he/she was the person who sold much if not all of the land to CMI. Seems like a reasonable basis for recusal, no? Again, any light you can shed on that would surely be appreciated by the readers here.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Steve