[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by portapetey

No need to be dismissive and characterize genuine objection to the Trust's disingenuous tactics as either extremism, merely chest-thumping, or "a load of crap." (Nice.)

You missed my point a little in that I wasn't defending the Trust. I was attempting to support the idea that even though the HT has been off target that the idea of balancing the saving of heritage properties while encouraging new development is a good one. In reading comments about the letter being discussed, it seems that some just immediately fly into defense mode without considering the "meat" of the material presented. Not everything is about fighting the Trade Centre, nor is everything about viewplanes. I think the writer's ideas about the balance of economics vs quality of life are really good ones.

And, yes, I agree that I can be a little too "expressive" sometimes (and probably use quotation marks a little too freely as well, but I digress) - sorry about that.

The Trust is playing the media game and trying to cast themselves as saviours standing up against the big bad monster developers. We could just as easily call that "chest thumping."

I agree with this, which is why taking the extreme opposite view does nothing to lend credence to your cause.

My point is, if you GENUINELY want balance, then build balance. Don't call for balance while at the same sneakily trying to stack the decks to your advantage.

I know it's just politics as usual - I'm not naive - but it's (I keep using this word, sorry) disingenuous.

Agree again, which is why I agreed with the letter that we need (here's that word again) balance. Again, I don't think we should jump on the idea that everything which comes out in support of heritage properties is part of some underhanded media war crafted by the HT - I think there are a lot of citizens who honestly support saving heritage buildings - probably many who don't follow the local goings on but are only saddened and perhaps outraged when they see yet another Halifax landmark fall to the wrecker's ball or have its character ripped out by building up through its facade (in human terms it reminds me a little of taxidermy, but that's another discussion for another time).

I guarantee that if the Dennis Building comes down there will be a lot of outcry from the public at the loss. Once it's gone it's gone forever and we need to think in those terms. Sorry, getting a little off-topic, but it's a valid point to the discussion, I think.

I completely agree with your final paragraph.

Of course I agree with this...



P.S. Sorry if some of my points are unclear - my posts are often written in haste.