A Churchill Future group member, Liz Casman, created a document with a lot of helpful information in a single source.
A Churchill Future group member, Liz Casman, created a document with a lot of helpful information in a single source.
With the lack of sanitary sewers as this document indicates, how could this project have come this far that there are studies? It would help if we knew who is for the project, maybe we could write to them and change their minds? It seems most residents are against it, someone must be “egging Amazon on” for them to have not given up earlier.
I found some possibly wrong numbers that are kind of S—-ty.
Do not mean to be offensive but I was looking today at some of the Churchill documents about the Amazon facility. For some reason, I had to look at the sewage facilities document (I don’t know why, what am I thinking, but being early retired I look at stuff like that). I found some of the figures suspect. I cannot cut and paste but I refer to page 26 of 84.
The table says that at present, the sewage flow is 25,000 gallons per day. But the buildings are vacant now and if they are vacant, who is taking a dump there? That number now should be close if not at 0.
The table also says there are 2500 people there x 10 gallons of water. I don’t think Westinghouse ever had that many it was more like at most 1500. So 1500 x 10 = 15,000 gpd back then.
Langan says Amazon will use 69,510 gpd. They also say on another question on the same form that the flow would be less than 50,000 gpd but that is with their 25,000 gpd from the “vacant” buildings.
With the numbers that WH would have had, 69,510 – 15,000 = 54,510, > 50,000 but that is NOT what they told Alcosan.
Maybe this could be presented as another “fudged figure” (oh, I probably should not word it that way). Now I thought engineers were supposed to be really good at math and know all the right answers. Is what I am bringing up wrong?
Could someone let me know if anyone received this and update us?
Mr. Connor,
The data submitted by Hillwood and produced by Logan to support the project is all suspect. There are lies, distortions, exaggerations, omissions, false comparisons in every single report. We cannot directly state that without alienating council who we need to vote no, but what we can do is challenge those numbers. A good time to bring this up will be in next week’s public comments on the 4th.
To avoid being challenged and looking foolish by Mr. Gallagher the Hillwood attorney, all the numbers need to be verified. The conclusions should be clear and succinct. It is the council we must impress with the data.
No one has discussed the points you bring up, so I encourage you to develop the argument and present it. The rest of us have had our turn, and can no longer present data, we are now just observers.
If you write it out as a complete report, we can also publish it on the website so that others can read it slowing and digest the data that few think about.
As to abandoned building, one section is still being used, to the west of the original building where the roof and windows were removed. I think they also still rent to the movie companies as well.
Murray Bilby
Actually, Murray, I do not live in Churchill but will be affected by the place. Thus, I cannot say anything at one of the meetings. Alex told me that. But I am telling people here in Penn Hills about this and I do write to people with CF to see if this could help. Why would stating these numbers alienate council? Should I bring up these numbers I found with Alex? I wonder too, wouldn’t Langan (or gateway?) be doing Amazon a disservice by tell them it is OK to place a building at a site that is too small? Shouldn’t they keep the client from finding out “the hard way”? That it would be best to be in New Stanton or someplace like that? Feel free to call me at 412 209 8946, I would like an update. Thank you, Bob Connor