Quote:
Originally Posted by portapetey
The article was ostensibly about "balance" but I think was clearly written in support of giving a greater voice to the heritage side of the argument (could be wrong I suppose; happened once), as if that voice will "balance" the presumably more powerful voice of the development side of the argument. The trust / save the view side is trying to portray the developers as powerful, wealthy bullies picking on the little guy (despite the fact that the developers clearly have very little power in reality) and is trying to say that there needs to be more balance against this Goliath.
My quip about "balance between listening to the Heritage Trust and drowning out the developers" was completely facetious, illustrating my opinion that the letter really isn't promoting balance at all, but just trying to support the Trust to the point of drawing out the developers.
Sorry if the sarcasm was not clear.
|
I agree with portapetey. This is obviously from someone associated with the Heritage Trust and is not unbiased. The Heritage Trust group keeps mentioning their success at stopping the Harbour Drive as the author did. I am sick and tired of hearing Heritage Trust members telling everyone how the convention centre will fail. Their aim was to stop tall buildings at the Nova Centre site and now they are all convention business experts.