X-UIDL: MSG1143771430.4 X-Mozilla-Status: 1013 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-Message-Status: n:0 X-SID-PRA: Cullen, Alex X-SID-Result: TempError X-Message-Info: moY6YVwXQ46oaoCOiW5+Em+UQPm5YTTkTmEMm/x45hc= Received: from tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.113]) by bay0-pamc1-f4.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:17:10 -0800 Received: from toip5.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.88]) by tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20060331021709.PXPC1664.tomts1-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip5.bellnexxia.net> for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:17:09 -0500 Received: from mercury2.rmoc.on.ca ([192.234.223.128]) by toip5.bellnexxia.net with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2006 21:17:05 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C65469.085F7F7B" Subject: RE: carp river restoration project Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:15:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: carp river restoration project Thread-Index: AcZQhvbkUyBwvjAeQSuJqggS1BnB+gD4ehmA From: "Cullen, Alex" To: "john" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2006 02:15:52.0025 (UTC) FILETIME=[08A94C90:01C65469] Return-Path: Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C65469.085F7F7B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi John: =20 I just realized that what Diane Holmes gave me is the letter from your = third item - it is pretty damning, We will discuss this when the Kanata = West EA's come before Planning Committee. =20 Alex Cullen=20 Councillor, Bay Ward=20 City of Ottawa=20 110 Laurier Ave. W.=20 Ottawa K1P 1J1=20 Tel. (613) 580-2477; Fax (613) 580-2517=20 E-Mail: alex.cullen@ottawa.ca=20 -----Original Message----- From: john [mailto:john.almstedt@sympatico.ca] Sent: March 25,2006 10:37 PM To: Cullen, Alex Subject: carp river restoration project Hi Alex, Hope all is well! As you can see I'm still hanging in with the Carp = River Restoration project - it's got more twists and turns than any City = project I've ever been involved with. I have a few questions I was = hoping you might be able to comment on: 1. What kind of financial obligations has the City made for the Carp = River restoration project? Item 2 on the Agenda of the Planning & = Environment Committee meeting for Tuesday March 28 makes it look as = though there might not be any financial obligations which of course = isn't true considering that I believe $387,000 has been set aside in the = growth and strategic initiatives budget for 2006. http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2006/03-28/ACS2006-PGM-A= PR-0003.htm. 2. According to Ned Lathrop's e-mail to you and myself in August 2004 = (his e-mail is at the bottom of this e-mail) he stated that the City = would be paying approx. $300,000 as their share of river restoration = costs in the building of the Sensplex. Was this money actually ever = paid, and if so, where is it now? 3. Kanata West is the first Developer led Community Plan in Ottawa - = which probably explains much of the confusion and uncertainty amongst = City Staff and the Developers. It might also explain some of the = damning criticism by various provincial ministries on the Developer paid = engineering reports: http://www.storm.ca/~orkeeper/letters/jan31_06.html Unfortunately, political pressure now seems to be asserting itself at = the provincial level to have the ministries ease-up on their demands - a = pretty sad situation. Do you think most members of the Planning and = Environment Committee are even aware of the criticisms in the January 31 = ministries letter? =20 Would be interested in discussing some of the planning issues with you = sometime. Take care, John -------- Original Message --------=20 Subject: [Fwd: FW: carp watershed]=09 Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:11:03 -0500=09 From: ottawa river heritage (john a.) = =09 To: almstedt = =09 -------- Original Message --------=20 Subject: FW: carp watershed=09 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:49:28 -0400=09 From: Lathrop, Ned = =09 To: ' john.almstedt@sympatico.ca' = =09 CC: Cullen, Alex = , Geddes, Greg = , Herweyer, Don = , Murphy, Susan (ENV) = , Chevrier-Smit, = Elaine = =09 Dear Mr. Almstedt: In reference to your request for information on the above subject, = please note the following. Sensplex=20 Ice Pads=20 The draft Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Plan was used to guide staff = on comments and conditions for this development proposal. The two main = environmental considerations were stormwater management and the Carp = River restoration plan. The Carp River Watershed Plan sets out a water = quality target of 70% removal of suspended solids. =20 =20 The draft Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Plan recommends that the = Carp River be rehabilitated as it has been severely degraded by past = land use practices and channelization. The plan recommends a riverine = wetland within a minimum 100 m corridor. The cost of the restoration = works from Richardson Side Road south to Glen Cairn Pond would cost = approximately $4-5 million. This works out to about $800 per linear = metre for the whole width of the corridor (both sides of the river). I = believe the arena site has a frontage of 1500 metres so their share = would be approximately $300,000. The cost and implementation of the = restoration plan will be a City responsibility as the City owns other = lands along the Carp River. Funding mechanisms for the entire Carp River = corridor are being explored through the Kanata West planning exercise = and there will be a combination of private land owner and City = contributions. =20 The Stormwater Management approach for the Bell Sensplex incorporated = the water quantity and quality recommendations from the Carp River = Watershed/Subwatershed Plan. After meeting with the MOE ( the final = approval authority) there was agreement and support in terms of the = City's approach. A "wet pond" for the site was not utilized as the area = of the Bell Sensplex property does not meet the Ministry's guideline for = minimum area (5Ha) required to support such a system. =20 Carp Airport -=20 =20 The Carp Airport development application process has just been = initiated. A number of studies are required to support the development = applications (not yet submitted) which include: Natural Environment, = Stormwater Management, and Groundwater/Terrain Analysis. Staff provided = input into the Terms of Reference for these studies. Again, the Carp = River Watershed/Subwatershed study was used as a guide to outline the = study deliverables required to support this development application. = The key environmental considerations are: watercourses (aquatic, = geomorphology, temperature, base flow), woodland, recharge potential, = groundwater characterization, stormwater management (quality and = quantity), groundwater/rural servicing. We are now waiting for the = submission of these reports and associated development applications = which will be reviewed in context of the watershed findings and = recommendations. There will be a series of public meeting and = information sessions associated the development applications for this = proposal (Official Plan, Zoning, Subdivision, Site Plan). No decisions = regarding location of airport runway expansion or creek relocation have = been made and will go through a full technical and public review = process. =20 Yours truly, =20 Ned Lathrop Deputy City Manager Planning and Growth Management City of Ottawa ----------Original Message----- From: Cullen, Alex=20 Sent: July 18, 2004 5:16 PM To: 'almstedt' Cc: Wellman; Lathrop, Ned Subject: RE: carp watershed Thank you for this, John, but I do still want these answers. Sometimes = we at City Hall miss these points unless they are brought to our = attention by the public, particularly those who take a direct interest = in the matter. =20 And congratulations on your recent bike win in the Master's Category = (according to the Ottawa Citizen). You are setting an example for the = rest of us! =20 Alex Cullen=20 Councillor, Bay Ward=20 City of Ottawa=20 110 Laurier Ave. W.=20 Ottawa K1P 1J1=20 Tel. (613) 580-2477; Fax (613) 580-2517=20 E-Mail: alex.cullen@ottawa.ca=20 -----Original Message----- From: almstedt [ mailto:john.almstedt@sympatico.ca] Sent: July 17,2004 11:45 PM To: Cullen, Alex Cc: Wellman; Ned.Lathrop@ottawa.ca Subject: Re: carp watershed Alex, as usual you always seems to have a moment, thanks! =20 But, I'm kind of disappointed you're passing it on to the staff because = I was hoping for something from the political perspective. We both know = that saving some initial money in the construction of a badly needed = rink really made it difficult to raise water runoff issues - but this is = 2004 not 1984 when we might not have been as knowledgeable about the = watershed. And, as for the airport, I find it disappointing that = committments seems to have been made to the potential developers before = the public has had a chance for input. This will make it very difficult = to "slow down the train".=20 Alex, I don't want you to bother Ned, Sue or any any other staff person = who might have to waste their time to consider my query. It's the = relationship between the public and Council that I'm most concerned = about. Another example is 495 Richmond where committments seem to have = been made to development proponents before the public who own the land = were even consulted causing yet another confrontation between the public = and their elected representative. When it comes to the environment I think Council should hang their head = in shame. I can't think to the last time I heard of an environment = related decision by the City that caused me to say, "wow, that was = great" - granted, you've personally done a great job in pushing the lawn = spray topic. In both the Sensplex and airport situations is seems like environmental = considerations are just an after thought - I expect more from the = "ENVIRONMENT and planning committee."=20 John Almstedt Cullen, Alex wrote: Thank you for this, John. I have forwarded your comments to Ned Lathrop, = General Manager of Planning & Development, for his response. =20 Alex Cullen=20 Councillor, Bay Ward=20 City of Ottawa=20 110 Laurier Ave. W.=20 Ottawa K1P 1J1=20 Tel. (613) 580-2477; Fax (613) 580-2517=20 E-Mail: alex.cullen@ottawa.ca=20 -----Original Message----- From: almstedt [ mailto:john.almstedt@sympatico.ca] Sent: July 16,2004 9:54 AM To: Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca Cc: Wellman Subject: carp watershed Hi Alex, It's been almost a month since I sent an e-mail to members of the = Planning and Environment Committee about some obvious problems occurring = with the Carp watershed that involves City of Ottawa interests. I've = had no reply from anyone. >From my perspective the two concerns that I described in the e-mail = makes it look like the City is applying a lower standard of = environmental protection to itself than it would from a developer. My = two concerns are: 1. The new Sensplex arena on Maple Grove Road looks like it's draining = straight into the Carp River without being controlled by a stormwater = management facility like I see the City asking developers on the other = side of the Carp River to provide in the Kanata West development? How = can this be, especially when the viability of the arena is contingent = upon long-term commitments being made by the City to use the arena? 2. In the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee Report = of May 4 I noticed that decisions are being made on the future use of = the Carp Airport before there's even public consultation or = consideration of environmental factors affecting the property - which is = owned and operated by the City. http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc/2004/05-04/ACS2004-CRS= -RPR-0016.htm Based on my understanding of the Business Plan for the Airport, a = fundamental requirement of the project involves extending the runway. It = appears to me that the proponent has decided that it is best to do this = by extending the runway north instead of south (or some combination = thereof). As a result a cool or coldwater creek identified in the Carp = River Watershed Plan will need to be diverted, and lands currently zoned = agricultural will need to be rezoned to allow for the extension of the = runway and construction of a road. How can commitments be made to this = land use plan where by the proponent is holding a gun to the City's head = stating they were "aware that its Business Plan did not fully comply but = indicated, in writing, that the Land Use and Airport Master Plans could = not be modified to comply with all existing planning regulation without = jeopardizing the financial viability of the project." Elsewhere in the supporting documentation am I supposed to believe the = Official Plan Policies are being complied with? Well what about Section = 2.4.3.7 of the Official Plan that commits to planning such large = development areas using subwatershed planning? I presume when the City = consulted with the Conservation Authority (subsection 2.4.3.7c) the MVCA = would have had concerns about the need for moving this cool/cold water = creek? In fact shouldn't the decision on which direction to move the = runway have come after a public process considering the alternatives = such as moving Carp Road rather than the creek? Recognition of some basic watershed planning principles seems to be = absent in the above two situations and I was wondering if there was an = explanation for this? As you know I've been involved over the years in = various environmental projects/issues and am surprised and somewhat = disappointed that I'm simply being ignored - is there any wonder that so = many feel a disconnect between themselves and their political = representatives? Sincerely, John Almstedt ------_=_NextPart_001_01C65469.085F7F7B Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 John:
 
I just realized = that what=20 Diane Holmes gave me is the letter from your third item - it is pretty = damning,=20 We will discuss this when the Kanata West EA's come before Planning=20 Committee.
 

Alex Cullen
Councillor, Bay Ward
City of=20 Ottawa
110 Laurier Ave. W. =
Ottawa K1P 1J1
Tel. (613)=20 580-2477; Fax (613) 580-2517
E-Mail:=20 alex.cullen@ottawa.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: john=20 [mailto:john.almstedt@sympatico.ca]
Sent: March 25,2006 = 10:37=20 PM
To: Cullen, Alex
Subject: carp river = restoration=20 project

Hi Alex,

Hope all is well!  As = you can=20 see I'm still hanging in with the Carp River Restoration project - = it's got=20 more twists and turns than any City project I've ever been involved=20 with.  I have a few questions I was hoping you might be able to = comment=20 on:

1. What kind of financial obligations has the City made for = the=20 Carp River restoration project?  Item 2 on=20 the Agenda of the Planning & Environment Committee meeting for = Tuesday=20 March 28 makes it look as though there might not be any financial = obligations=20 which of course isn't true considering that I believe $387,000 has = been set=20 aside in the growth and strategic initiatives budget for = 2006.
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/200= 6/03-28/ACS2006-PGM-APR-0003.htm.

2.=20 According to Ned Lathrop's e-mail to you = and myself in=20 August 2004 (his e-mail is at the bottom of this e-mail) he stated = that the=20 City would be paying approx. $300,000 as their share of river = restoration=20 costs in the building of the Sensplex.  Was this money actually ever paid, and if so, where is it=20 now?

3.=20 Kanata West is the first Developer led Community Plan in Ottawa - = which=20 probably explains much of the confusion and uncertainty amongst City = Staff and=20 the Developers.  It might also explain some of the damning = criticism by=20 various provincial ministries on the Developer paid engineering=20 reports:
http://www.s= torm.ca/~orkeeper/letters/jan31_06.html
Unfortunately,=20 political pressure now seems to be asserting itself at the provincial = level to=20 have the ministries ease-up on their demands - a pretty sad=20 situation.   Do you think most members of the Planning and=20 Environment Committee are even aware of the criticisms in the January = 31=20 ministries letter? 

Would be interested in discussing = some of the=20 planning issues with you sometime.

Take care,
John







-------- Original = Message=20 --------=20 <= /TR>
Subject: [Fwd: FW: carp watershed]
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:11:03 -0500
From: ottawa river heritage (john a.) <orheritage@storm.ca>
To: almstedt <john.almstedt@sympatico.ca= >






--------=20 Original Message --------=20
Subject: FW: carp watershed
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:49:28 -0400
From: Lathrop, Ned <Ned.Lathrop@ottawa.ca>
To: 'john.almstedt@sympatico.ca= '=20 <john.almstedt@sympatico.ca= >
CC: Cullen, Alex <Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca>, = Geddes, Greg <Greg.Geddes@ottawa.ca>, = Herweyer, Don <Don.Herweyer@ottawa.ca>= ,=20 Murphy, Susan (ENV) <Susan.Murphy@ottawa.ca>= ,=20 Chevrier-Smit, Elaine <Elaine.Chevrier-Smit@o= ttawa.ca>



Dear Mr. = Almstedt:

In reference to your request for = information on the=20 above subject, please note the = following.

 Sensplex=20

Ice Pads=20

The=20 draft Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Plan was used to guide staff = on=20 comments and conditions for this development proposal.  The two = main=20 environmental considerations were stormwater management and the Carp = River=20 restoration plan.  The Carp River Watershed Plan sets out a water = quality=20 target of 70% removal of suspended solids. 
 
The=20 draft Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed Plan recommends that the = Carp=20 River be rehabilitated as it has been severely degraded by = past land=20 use practices and channelization.  The plan recommends a riverine = wetland=20 within a minimum 100 m corridor.  The cost of the restoration = works from=20 Richardson Side Road south to Glen Cairn Pond would cost approximately = $4-5=20 million. This works out to about $800 per linear metre for the whole = width of=20 the corridor (both sides of the river). I believe the arena site has a = frontage of 1500 metres so their share would be approximately = $300,000. =20 The cost and implementation of the restoration plan will be a City responsibility = as the City owns other lands along the Carp = River.=20 Funding mechanisms for the entire Carp River corridor are being = explored=20 through the Kanata West planning exercise and there will be a = combination of=20 private land owner and City contributions.
 
The=20 Stormwater Management approach for the Bell Sensplex incorporated the = water=20 quantity and quality recommendations from the Carp River = Watershed/Subwatershed=20 Plan.  After meeting=20 with the MOE ( the final = approval=20 authority) there was = agreement=20 and support in terms of the City's=20 approach.  A "wet pond" for the=20 site was not utilized as the area of the Bell Sensplex property = does=20 not meet the Ministry's guideline for minimum area (5Ha) required to = support=20 such a system.
 
Carp Airport = - 
 
The=20 Carp Airport development application process has just been = initiated.  A=20 number of studies are required to support the development = applications (not yet submitted) which=20 include:  Natural Environment, Stormwater Management, and=20 Groundwater/Terrain Analysis.  Staff provided input into the = Terms of=20 Reference for these studies.  Again, the Carp River=20 Watershed/Subwatershed study was used as a guide to outline the study=20 deliverables required to support this development application.  = The key=20 environmental considerations are:  watercourses (aquatic, = geomorphology,=20 temperature, base flow), woodland, recharge potential, groundwater=20 characterization, stormwater management (quality and=20 quantity), groundwater/rural servicing.   We are now = waiting=20 for the submission of these reports and=20 associated development applications which will be reviewed in = context=20 of the watershed findings and recommendations.=20 There will be a series of public meeting and information sessions = associated=20 the development applications for this proposal (Official Plan, = Zoning,=20 Subdivision, Site Plan). No decisions regarding location of airport = runway=20 expansion or creek relocation have been made and will go through a = full=20 technical and public review process.
 
Yours truly,
 
Ned=20 Lathrop
Deputy City Manager
Planning and Growth Management
City=20 of Ottawa

----------Original=20 Message-----
From: Cullen, Alex
Sent: July 18, = 2004 5:16=20 PM
To: 'almstedt'
Cc: Wellman; Lathrop,=20 Ned
Subject: RE: carp watershed

Thank = you for this,=20 John, but I do still want these answers. Sometimes we at City = Hall miss=20 these points unless they are brought to our attention by the = public,=20 particularly those who take a direct interest in the=20 matter.
 
And = congratulations=20 on your recent bike win in the Master's Category (according to = the=20 Ottawa Citizen). You are setting an example for the rest of=20 us!
 

Alex Cullen
Councillor, Bay Ward
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier=20 Ave. W.
Ottawa K1P = 1J1=20
Tel. (613) 580-2477; Fax (613)=20 580-2517
E-Mail: alex.cullen@ottawa.ca=20

-----Original Message-----
From: almstedt = [mailto:john.almstedt@sympatico= ca]
Sent:=20 July 17,2004 11:45 PM
To: Cullen, Alex
Cc: = Wellman; Ned.Lathrop@ottawa.ca
Sub= ject:=20 Re: carp watershed

Alex, as usual you = always seems=20 to have a moment, thanks! 

But, I'm kind of = disappointed=20 you're passing it on to the staff because I was hoping for = something=20 from the political perspective.  We both know that saving = some=20 initial money in the construction of a badly needed rink = really made=20 it difficult to raise water runoff issues - but this is 2004 = not 1984=20 when we might not have been as knowledgeable about the=20 watershed.  And, as for the airport, I find it = disappointing that=20 committments seems to have been made to the potential = developers=20 before the public has had a chance for input.  This will = make it=20 very difficult to "slow down the train".

Alex, I don't = want=20 you to bother Ned, Sue or any any other staff person who might = have to=20 waste their time to consider my query.  It's the = relationship=20 between the public and Council that I'm most concerned = about. =20 Another example is 495 Richmond where committments seem to = have been=20 made to development proponents before the public who own the = land were=20 even consulted causing yet another confrontation between the = public=20 and their elected representative.

When = it comes to=20 the environment I think Council should hang their head in = shame. =20 I can't think to the last time I heard of an environment = related=20 decision by the City that caused me to say, "wow, that was = great" -=20 granted, you've personally done a great job in pushing the = lawn spray=20 topic.

In both the Sensplex and airport situations is = seems=20 like environmental considerations are just an after thought - = I expect=20 more from the "ENVIRONMENT and planning committee." =

John=20 Almstedt

Cullen, Alex wrote:
Thank you for=20 this, John. I have forwarded your comments to Ned Lathrop, = General=20 Manager of Planning & Development, for his=20 response.
 

Alex Cullen =
Councillor, Bay Ward
City of Ottawa
110 Laurier=20 Ave. W.
Ottawa K1P = 1J1=20
Tel. (613) 580-2477; Fax = (613)=20 580-2517
E-Mail: alex.cullen@ottawa.ca=20

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 almstedt [mailto:john.almstedt@sympatico= ca]
Sent:=20 July 16,2004 9:54 AM
To: Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca
Cc:= =20 Wellman
Subject: carp=20 watershed

Hi = Alex,
It's been almost a = month=20 since I sent an e-mail to members of the Planning and = Environment=20 Committee about some obvious problems occurring with the = Carp=20 watershed that involves City of Ottawa = interests.   I've=20 had no reply from anyone.
From my perspective = the two=20 concerns that I described in the e-mail makes it look like = the=20 City is applying a lower standard of environmental = protection to=20 itself than it would from a developer.  My two = concerns=20 are:

1.  The new = Sensplex=20 arena on Maple Grove Road looks like it's draining = straight into=20 the Carp River without being controlled by a stormwater = management=20 facility like I see the City asking developers on the = other side=20 of the Carp River to provide in the Kanata West = development? =20 How can this be, especially when the viability of the = arena is=20 contingent upon long-term commitments being made by the = City to=20 use the arena?

2. In the Corporate = Services=20 and Economic Development Committee Report of May 4 I = noticed that=20 decisions are being made on the future use of the Carp = Airport=20 before there's even public consultation or consideration = of=20 environmental factors affecting the property - which is = owned and=20 operated by the City.
http://ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/csedc= /2004/05-04/ACS2004-CRS-RPR-0016.htm

Based on my = understanding of the Business Plan for the Airport, a = fundamental=20 requirement of the project involves extending the runway. = It=20 appears to me that the proponent has decided that it is = best to do=20 this by extending the runway north instead of south (or = some=20 combination thereof). As a result a cool or coldwater = creek=20 identified in the Carp River Watershed Plan will need to = be=20 diverted, and lands currently zoned agricultural will need = to be=20 rezoned to allow for the extension of the runway and = construction=20 of a road. How can commitments be made to this land use = plan where=20 by the proponent is holding a gun to the City's head = stating they=20 were "aware that its Business Plan did not fully comply = but=20 indicated, in writing, that the Land Use and Airport = Master Plans=20 could not be modified to comply with all existing planning = regulation without jeopardizing the financial viability of = the=20 project."
Elsewhere in the supporting documentation am = I=20 supposed to believe the Official Plan Policies are = being=20 complied with? Well what about Section 2.4.3.7 of the = Official Plan that commits to planning such large = development=20 areas using subwatershed planning? I presume when the City = consulted with the Conservation Authority (subsection = 2.4.3.7c)=20 the MVCA would have had concerns about the need for moving = this=20 cool/cold water creek? In fact shouldn't the decision on = which=20 direction to move the runway have come after a public = process=20 considering the alternatives such as moving Carp Road = rather than=20 the creek?

Recognition of some basic watershed = planning=20 principles seems to be absent in the above two situations = and I=20 was wondering if there was an explanation for this?  = As you=20 know I've been involved over the years in various = environmental=20 projects/issues and am surprised and somewhat disappointed = that=20 I'm simply being ignored - is there any wonder that so = many feel a=20 disconnect between themselves and their political=20 representatives?

Sincerely,
John=20 = Almstedt
------_=_NextPart_001_01C65469.085F7F7B--