Quote:
Originally Posted by alecz_dad
But, in all earnestness, I must ask, how do you think the residents' side could have worked better? It seemed to me they knew they were getting screwed anyway. It was just a choice of whether they fought to keep their pants on, or just dropped their drawers and grabbed their ankles, and hoped Roger Greenberg would be gentle.
|
"In all earnestness"? Ok, I'll take you at your word. Here goes.
First of all, the "residents' side" could have acknowledged that they didn't speak for the whole community. I participated in early consultations, and it was very clear from those sessions and from the poll done by the GCA that there was a wide diversity of opinion: on the stadium, on the residential component, on the retail. The results of those consultations conveniently disappeared from public view, and a small group took on the charge without any real mandate from the people and interests that they claimed to represent. Not only that, they essentially shouted down (literally and figuratively) anyone who voiced a different opinion. The opposition would have been far more effective if it actually had a mandate to speak for the community.
Second, the opponents could have shed the forces of good vs. evil developers story and actually engaged in balanced criticism, acknowledging their real interests, even if in many cases that was the removal of the stadium entirely. In reality, most of the people speaking loudest had a very real personal interest at stake and their motives were not any more altruistic than those of the developers. But the real issues got lost in this constant barrage of insinuation, conspiracy theory, and the needless villification of the principles involved (see your Roger Greenberg reference above). All of those are just tactics that detract from the real issues. One can't engage in any meaningful discussion of any issue without first being clear about the real interests at stake. Instead, the FOL tried to out-spin the City, and it turned out that they weren't very good at it.
Third, the opponents could have held themselves to the same standards that they demanded of those behind the project. While they demanded documentary evidence of every interaction between the City and OSEG, they never saw any needed to support any of their claims. They engaged in personal attacks and allegations of serious wrongdoing without even a shred of evidence. It made them look like hypocrites, and it hurt their credibility. For instance, do you have any evidence that OSEG asked a PR agency to "vilify" opponents? I didn't think so.
Lastly, the opponents could have taken the $200,000 that they utterly wasted on legal procedings (and yes, it was very obvious from the outset that they were not going to succeed), and put that into something constructive - professional advice on alterations to the project such as improvements to neighbourhood integration, pedestrian and bike facilities etc. - you know, the stuff that actually makes life better for the people living nearby.
In the past couple of years, I've probably volunteered 100 hours of my personal time into assisting with the transportation planning effort, and I am hoping to see some of that bear fruit. With one exception, I don't see any of the loudest opponents of the plan involved in that effort. If they are actually interested in constructive efforts to improve their community, where have they gone?
By the way, I don't expect you to respond to this. You're all about the low-hanging fruit when it comes to discussing these issues.
Prev
Linear Mode
