I'm not disputing the contractual obligations.

In my opinion, and I might add observation the damage to the LC area is far greater than what it was the last time I observed it via: Google earth at least 12 months ago. So again, RM's reply was not really a full disclosure of the facts as they seem to appear today.

Only a fogy corporate non disclosure non committal rhetoric reply was given when asked a question that might have a negative attached to the facts. Which in my experience with KRY is norm.

Far as I'm concerned ........... end of subject.

gjt