No Quarry in Bayside

Dear Mr. Hughes,

We have previously written (via fax and hard mailed copy) to Mr. Hache´, and while he may not have had time to respond, a letter to you from Peter and Mary Kane, our neighbors in Bayside reached us here in Japan via email, and causes us to write again.

We agree with the Kane's reasoning that the Rural Plan and subsequent Quarry Application are, indeed, one matter, not two. Denying that they are linked inextricably looks from our vantage like a strategy to create the loophole through which Jamer can establish the legitimacy of their business across Route 127 from where they now operate.

We repeat: The qualities of the area that convinced us to make our home there are directly threatened by the expansion of the quarry. Why anyone in positions of authority over this matter would consider the idea of an expanded quarry as envisioned by Jamer anything but a direct assault on the people who live there is beyond belief. Forgive us if we presume there is support for Jamer among those responsible for development decisions in the area. But how is it that the language was inserted in the new Rural Plan that allowed for quarry applications? Who put that line into the proposal and why?

We strongly urge that you create a new rural plan that explicitly states that the kind of development in Bayside represented by a quarry operation is not allowed. Period.

Distance and professional obligations prevented us from attending the hearing recently held, but please know that we will be watching with a keen eye all the way from around the world, and we will expect authorities who have responsibility for planning in Bayside to do the right thing.

Thank you for your attention, and please excuse any errors of fact in our letters, as we are not, perhaps, receiving all relevant communications on this matter.

Sincerely,

Fred and Amy Wesson
Bayside/Kobe, Japan