Zenyatta Free Speech Board Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Zenyatta Free Speech Board

ZEN 77.48

0.0%

Nov 21 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rocket Red who wrote (17493)	7/10/2017 9:08:19 AM
From: GrumpyGus	1 Recommendation Recommended By llama1337 Read Replies (1) of 22811

That is disappointing. And a puzzler. It appears that the court case was decided and a ruling made that strikes down any contention that there is a zoning issue. The judge has stated that CPTAQ can continue with its process, and a date for an appeal has been set. So what basis is there to delay the process? In addition, is CPTAQ not mandated to simply determine if land is suitable for agriculture or not, and therefore whether or not other uses can be made of it? What is stopping them from making that decision? If zoning is an issue, then the appropriate body can rule on that aspect of the application, with CPTAQ's decision still being valid as far as agricultural protection goes. It seemed that this part of CCB's mine development would have been one of the easier to achieve. There already is a quarry in the area, they have shown that there will be nothing toxic involved in the end game, and they have followed all the rules, changing as they have been, from the get go. Sure is frustrating.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next