Re: Recap (long) of public meeting

Dave,
No, by no means do I see your posts as being supportive of the CHS, and I do appreciate very much the information you and Scott and Skip and Kevin and many others are providing for us, especially as I live hundreds of miles away and am trying to keep abreast of all the developments.
But with the objective to: “Hear and integrate input from the affected communities on the issues to be addressed in the RFP,” it seems that the CHS people missed a golden opportunity at the meeting to defend their actions that have been so vilified here by some very well-qualified critics who have already offered voluminous input during the past many weeks. (And we’ve read on this board that they do, indeed, have moles looking in on these comments.)
Now perhaps they don’t see all this criticism as applicable to the RFP process. But they should at least realize that the points of the impasse with GLR are the very issues that potential RFP submissions need to intelligently address if they’re not going to get into the same situation as the present one that’s causing all this debacle. Otherwise there are going to be countless numbers of hours wasted by everyone involved with the blizzard of paperwork that’s due to follow. Or do I not understand how the process works?
Yes, “....it may turn out that the RFP's might open some CHS eyes and there could be some changes in their goals.” Is that what it’s going to take before the Ashby team is finally recognized for their 30 years of building one of the finest reputations in the tourist-railroad industry? Or will they eventually fade into the sunset no matter what?