Chatham County Online BBS
February 10, 2012, 03:24:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read the latest Chatham news at Chatham Journal
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: WRAL-TV - Durham commissioners vote in favor of controversial development on 751  (Read 1142 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Silk_Hope
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 11:06:23 PM
Date Registerd:April 02, 2007, 08:29:04 PM
Posts: 8300



« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2010, 02:56:05 PM »

Funny how Chatham lays little claim to Jordan Lake's water yet Cary can suck it dry.

Again, the Durham County administration made the decision on their own land use and we have to respect their sovereignty. I would hope that if Chatham planned a development other counties would keep their noses out of it.
Logged

Warming the Globe One Mile at a Time

"The oil may be found in Texas but the dipsticks are all in DC."

http://www.obamaclock.org/
SuzieQ
Member
**
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 03:24:24 PM
Date Registerd:March 22, 2010, 05:43:39 PM
Posts: 81


« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2010, 02:56:40 PM »

The development is in DURHAM COUNTY, not Chatham, build a bridge and get over it.

It's just over the county line and in the same Jordan Lake watershed that a large chunk of Chatham County is in, and it's instructive to ask how a similar situation, which is sure to come up, would be handled by those who want to lead the county commission.

Odd, why is no one on the right willing to say if they think this development is a good idea or not?

I think it is odd that you seem to be ignoring that you were wrong when you said the candidates are against all regulation.  Looks to me like you are trying to ignore the fact that you are operating under and assumption for which you have offered no proof.  Ok, so you're obviously trying to pin approval of this development on the candidates, even though it isn't even happening in this county.

We'll see what the candidates say when they can respond.  In the meantime, maybe you should admit that your broad generalization wasn't true, or at least offer some quotes or other evidence to back up the notion that the candidates are against ALL regulation.
Logged
beinginferior
Chathameister
****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:41 PM
Date Registerd:May 06, 2010, 01:33:04 PM
Posts: 895


« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2010, 03:57:08 PM »

Careful Suzie,  you have entered the SPIN ZONE  Upside the head

The key here PC,  is that I nor anyone else would presume to answer for the candidates and given that the issue is OUTSIDE of the county I am unsure if they have studied it that hard.  You are asking us to answer for them.  I am afraid that your bait is still on the hook Wink
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!