Comment 556

By Joe (registered) | Posted June 02, 2006 at 13:19:16

Thanks for clarifying these issues, Ryan. I do appreciate your thorough reply.

Perhaps 'balanced' was not the best word choice, because I agree with you completely that many journalists who aren't knowledgeable about a topic end up skewing the truth by trying to be balanced. 'Objective' is what I meant. Taking a side, and providing evidence for that side is perfectly legitimate, however, there must be some objective arguments supporting the reconstruction of Lister. Here's my attempt (btw I make no claims of being an expert on this topic)...

  1. If I remember correctly, one of the benefits of reconstructing the building is to provide Hamilton with needed high quality office space (something about not having enough ceiling space with the current building).

  2. LIUNA owns the building. As much as we might disagree with what they have done with it (or lack thereof), it still belongs to them and if they want to hold off until they can make a 'sweetheart deal', then who can blame them? I wish business transactions would be inherently altruistic, but the truth is that real estate is about making a profit. At least their proposal is giving Hamiltonians what appears to be a pretty good replica and not another parking lot or strip mall.

  3. I suppose the question we all want answered is exactly why would LIUNA choose to rebuild Lister when some claim it's cheaper to renovate it? If it's because they can make a larger profit from rebuilding, then the next question is if what they are doing is illegal and/or immoral. If legal--then all the power to them. If immoral (i.e. intentional neglect)--then shame on them. At least Hamiltonians get something in return.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds