Comments on: We`re Not Buying [Sveinn Storm]

By: Starr

Starr — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:53:42 +0000

If farmland is the concern, why isn’t this farm in the land preservation program? Seems money may be an issue? Would you be trying to stop them from subdivision and more houses? I do hope so.

By: Gren Whitman

Gren Whitman — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:48:29 +0000

The best way to stand up to phone bullies (also usually unwilling to identify themselves) is not hide from them but to simply monitor the calls and to keep a log of who, when, and what was said. You can also record calls and if they get too spicy, alert authorities. Seems as if I’ve been through a few more strenuous situations than others. In a public fight, some harassment by yahoos and bullies is bound to happen. It’s part of the heat in the kitchen! Take it as a compliment to your prowess.

By: JCG

JCG — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:27:28 +0000

Respectfully Gren, I have received threatening emails from opponents of this project and prefer to keep those to a minimum. By not using my full name I am merely trying to protect myself.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:32:43 +0000

I have been allowing people to post comments as long as they identify themselves to me. In this case, the person’s email address clearly identifies who they are although that information is not visible to the standard user.

By: Gren Whitman

Gren Whitman — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:00:55 +0000

Re: comment by “JCG”
In my opinion, identifying yourself with initials only is simply not identifying yourself at all. I think if you engage in public discussion, you should be willing to be public about your identity. There’s a word for not doing so, several in fact.

By: JCG

JCG — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 17:00:45 +0000

Mr. Storm has not completed his homework

I appreciate his vigilance, however, I need to point out some misleading information in the posting.

First, it makes sense that there was a name change since the initial program plan because DS is consolidating only PART of the training to the new facility.

The first link above to Recovery.gov lists the exact same training activities that GSA/DS have stated will take place at the Ruthburg facility: Perimeter security, Indoor firing ranges, Live–fire shooting houses, Baffled outdoor tactical combat ranges, Outdoor rifle range, Drive and shoot range, Simulations building, High-speed antiterrorism driving tracks , Mock urban driving tracks, Unimproved road driving course, Administration buildings and Site/utility infrastructure.

Thank you to Mr Storm for proving the government’s statements as consistent.

The link that is included in “Further certification of the nature of this hard skills training facility is spelled out in the December 3rd Security Training Facility & Services Solicitation.” is totally irrelevant to the Ruthsburg facility.

Please re-read the Dec 3rd solicitation in its entirety. This solicitation is looking for EXISTING facilities.

From the solicitation:
“The Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), is looking for sources to provide training facilities and qualified instructor personnel in support of the Diplomatic Security Training Center’s mission.

Applicable NAICS Codes:
611692 – Automobile driving schools
611519 – Other technical and trade schools
711212 – Racetracks
611699 – All other miscellaneous schools and instruction

Responses are desired from vendors that are capable of fulfilling one, or both of the training requirements, and should stipulate in their response which training requirement they are capable of fulfilling (HTTC and/or FACT). ”

This December 3rd solicitation is NOT slated for the Ruthsburg facility. The government is looking for existing facilities to handle all those hard skills trainings that will not take place at the FASTC.

I truly understand the concerns of the community but I feel it’s irresponsible of Mr Storm to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt by twisting the facts to meet some personal agenda. People are frightened enough by their own imaginations of what may happen, and by pushing out this unrelated information, he is muddying the waters for relevant discussion of the project as has been described by GSA/DS.

By: Gren Whitman

Gren Whitman — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:16:39 +0000

Mr. Storm has done his homework, folks. Facts, facts, facts galore. He and I may not be in sync politically, but we agree that bombs , .50-cal machineguns, and whatnot are not compatible with the Ruthsburg site, which is immediately adjacent (i.e., as in “abuts”) to Tuckahoe State Park and Tuckhoe Creek. Imagine kayaking down the creek some spring day, introducing your kids to Prothonotary warblers, and a three-pound IED explodes nearby. Sayonara peace and quiet!
I think the property owners should take a page from civic-minded Kent Countians and donate their property to the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.