Some have asked how things are going and it's been awhile since the last update, so.....we're still waiting on the decision from the January 28th hearing for the appeal.  They have up to 90 days to make their decision - in some cases it's been on the 90th day. So we wait. For anyone who would like to hear the arguments the audio can be accessed here.
They are roughly 37 minutes long, with our lawyer being given 15 minutes to speak, their lawyer gets 20 minutes, then our lawyer is given 5 minutes for a rebuttal. Additionally the judges ask questions of both lawyers.

Noise was discussed as the main topic as the true effects of the impact are unknown until the facility would be operating.  Other items discussed were stormwater runoff, the wetlands, and mitigation efforts.

I think there are some mitigation points that are worthy of further review.  Not just through an EIS, but public participation.  These efforts were added after the public got to review the project and share concerns.  It's said that these changes were made because of the comments, but who does it really help?  Namely:

• The added 10 foot wall on top of the earthen berms surrounding the property.  From the outside that vision is not appealing at all, nor would it stop sound from carrying to further distances.  
• It's argued that putting agricultural land back to acres of wildlife grasses is an environmental win.  Nevermind the 3 mile asphalt track and accompanying lots/buildings within those same acres.  And at what point are the native grasses no longer aesthetically pleasing or attract unwanted bugs, wildlife, etc.?  
• Removing the hotel and golf entertainment center. The traffic study was based on traffic from those facilities, not the track and autocondo activities.
• "Don't worry, we'll fix it" to any concern they didn't want to address then and don't want to address right now.  What if they can't fix it?

Even if they don't have to do the EIS, it's not a project approval and it wouldn't say that there won't be further issues that may not even be environmental.  Increased traffic in an area with problematic traffic patterns and intersections, the effect it may have on businesses in Eagle Lake (because we still don't know if this place will have a restaurant/bar, body/repair shop, fuel, etc.) and what failure of success for this place may mean for the city. Should they get a pass on not doing an EIS, residents should still speak their concerns to the city council.