Taking advantage of an offer made by the Department when they issued Procedural Order #5 dated March 4 2013, Paul Kelley has requested a new hearing. I only scanned the letter so I don’t have much to say about it now. I will have more to say later I’m sure. I am assuming that DEP will grant the request since they gave us the option of calling for a new hearing but I suppose it’s always possible that they will decide his request for a new hearing is not justified and deny it. We’ll see. In any case, I guess I’m not surprised he has taken this step.
He also submitted an additional document which seems to be a summary of his objections to the bathymetric survey. Not too sure what to call it so I’ll just use his RE: line
I’ve had a chance to read Kelley’s second document; it is just a rehash of an old faulty argument he tried to make at the public hearing. I am prepared to refute it soundly. When attempting to change reality to suit one’s purpose, it helps to know what you’re talking about. In his attempt to define the elevation of the top of the dam, Kelley only succeeds in demonstrating his ignorance of matters on which I am an expert. He’s not going to get anywhere with this argument.
It’s probable that the DEP grants Kelley these extensions to avoid further inevitable “Kellyitis” (inflammation of useless paperwork hassles).
Would you follow up on the suggestion that I join the “Beyond Kelley” group regarding the repairs and future maintenance of the dam? I’ve done some sketches and calcs on how to raise the lake level, protect Mr. Kelley’s downstream bungle, and provide a clear opportunity to repair the dam. Obviously, real solutions, not paper ones, are needed. I promise to focus on the solution, not get caught up in the dam owner’s blatant negligence and ignorance.
It’s time that we all go “Beyond Kelley”, as his future is certainly one of failure and losing the property. It’s clear that he’s not concerned with the lake level or the repair of the dam, only his desperate staged farce. Since his show stinks, let’s move on.
I will Colin. I will probably set up a list address to handle emails. Sadly, rather than spending time addressing important things lately, I’ve found myself putting out fires that Kelley keeps igniting, no doubt with that specific intent. But that is the nature of these proceedings. In a way, having the DEP grant Kelley his 30 day extension to comment gives us all a welcome reprieve. We’ll make good use of the time.
As for Kelley’s request to reopen the public hearing, Procedural Order #5 clearly specified the circumstances under which such a request would be considered. I do not believe Kelley has met the requirements and I will be filing a response to his request asking the Department to deny it.
If you can believe what Kelley has been saying, his so-called “downstream bungle” is now Richard Smith’s “downstream bungle” and Mr. Smith has not been heard from. It appears that these two former partners have divvied up the property and Kelley ended up with only the dam (with no flowage rights) and Smith got everything else. I wonder how that happened? In any case, it would appear now that Kelley is continuing to fight our petition on the one hand and pursue his own petition for release from dam ownership on the other out of sheer stubborn cussedness.
And I agree: Kelley faces certain failure with the only question being how long before it is visited upon him, and at what cost. All too soon and too much from his point of view, not soon enough from mine.