(Total Views: 176)
Posted On: 10/25/2024 10:40:15 PM
Post# of 13487
Re: Wallstreet1234 #11698
ROFLMAO!
A former CEO like yourself would know that if not for the new law, every concerns the public had referenced in the denial, the COMPANY WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS AND CORRECT, but with the new law that right was taken away from the company.
https://dem.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur861/fi...071321.pdf
BTW if assuming the RI-DEM did their job properly over a 2 year period every one of the public concerns should have been addressed by the RI-DEM before theu mailed their letter of "intent to approve".
And if the RI-DEM was not satisfied with what the company provided they shouldn't have sent the letter to intent to approve.in the first place, should they?
A former CEO like yourself would know that if not for the new law, every concerns the public had referenced in the denial, the COMPANY WOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS AND CORRECT, but with the new law that right was taken away from the company.
https://dem.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur861/fi...071321.pdf
BTW if assuming the RI-DEM did their job properly over a 2 year period every one of the public concerns should have been addressed by the RI-DEM before theu mailed their letter of "intent to approve".
And if the RI-DEM was not satisfied with what the company provided they shouldn't have sent the letter to intent to approve.in the first place, should they?
(0)
(0)
