Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jtactile t1_jdexiex wrote

And you’re the exact kind of myopic turd you sounded like originally.

1

moobycow t1_jdf043y wrote

Ha. Serves me right for trying to have an actual discussion.

All the best.

1

jtactile t1_jdf1blp wrote

Hmm

  • cherry picks one line from response
  • and in response to maybe considering the complexity of things and admitting to what you don’t understand
  • doesn’t consider the possible environmental impact of a sports field vs a marsh, how that may have influenced FoLSP’s POV or other contributing factors
  • no response to anything else

“Actual discussion”

1

moobycow t1_jdf3bij wrote

Almost the entire list of points was, "price tag, lobbying, funding, remediation."

With price, lobbying and funding being for the remediation.

My one line addresses most all of them by pointing out a big reason it was so difficult to get funding for remediation is Friends of LSP lobbying against it because it has almost always come in the context of them getting ball fields.

You may think that they were correct, because of environmental concerns, or just different priorities.That's OK.

It doesn't change that a lot of people want the recreation and access that was originally in the plan, and it is not surprising that development interests would capitalize on the complete lack of anything being done for 45 years.

0