George,

After reading Paul's letter and the other information on your site I notice two things. First, no one seems to have tried to talk to rswa and second everyone ignores the incredible expense and time spent litigating prior to the settlements. The new cell, which no one mentioned is for construction debris not garbage, is needed to generate revenue so that the tax payers will not have to bear the burden for the settlements. The fact that a bunch of people, almost all of who moved in long after the landfill existed, freely agreed to refrain from attacking the rswa when it involves the application for the new cell, is in no way a constitutional issue. In fact I find their attempt to have their cake and eat it to insulting. You are talking about a group that has shown a willingness to say anything, true or not, to put more money in their pockets. The fact that the rswa only required them to refrain from disrupting the cell application process shows restraint. While I am in favor of protecting the water supply, I am not in favor of using the constitution for personal gain. The constitution is about freedom. It was this freedom that allowed the plaintiffs to sue the rswa and to agree to a settlement. The first amendment does not come into play.

Steven Miller (electronic mail, April 30, 2001).