Quote:
Originally Posted by little italian
Such as? I watched the NCC discussion, and this seemed like an accurate summary. There was lots of self congratulating going on, some discussion of "survey analytics", and a little debate was over when it is appropriate to abstain from a vote. The only people who brought actual content, questions, historical context or concrete considerations to the table were the dissenters.
I'm not saying that the decision was necessarily bad. I'm just saying that the board rubber stamped this decision.
|
The site was proposed by NCC staff after consultations with communities, experts, urban planners, the City, Federal government, etc. Board of Directors (14 unelected people) only approve it.
What Egan is doing here is twisting facts. Those who came up with the Tunney's location know the city and studied the options very well.