View Single Post
  #107  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2015, 9:47 PM
SSideAtty SSideAtty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
That may be the reality today. However as a poster above me noted, it may not always be the case and hasnt always been either. Once the land is turned over to another purpose it isnt coming back. It is about setting a poor precedent about what is and isn't permissible in public parks.

Implying that situating the Library inside the park is the one and only thing that could possibly ever bring about positive change is misguided. Having it anywhere nearby in the neighborhood, especially given the available vacant land, would have just as much as a positive impact and funnel the same level of investment into the area, without sacrificing the public land that has already been set aside. Yes, I would rather not get the library than set that precedent because it opens the floodgates to all sorts of other thorny issues about what is and isnt permissible on public land and about who has the final say. I do not want private interests of any kind on public parkland, whether its a fast food chain or the archive of a United States president. These issues should be treated equally.

Whats more sad is that we as city residents are taxpayers and already funding upkeep for the park...it shouldn't take a huge private outside interest to fix things up. There's no reason why tens of millions of dollars should get funneled to downtown parks and the neighborhoods are left with scraps. that is the real injustice here and where the justifiable outrage about conditions and safety should lie. (And i should note there are posters on this forum who freely advocate for heavy downtown investment and corporate handouts at the expense of neglected neighborhoods...which I dont)



Excuse me? My comment had zero racial component to it whatsoever and you're the only one "going there"....

Swinging Dick
Definitions
Slang
noun a forceful, powerful individual. The term evokes a large virile male and is in use particularly among financial traders, first in wall street, and subsequently in the City of London.


It was a stand-in noun for "rich guy". Yes i occasionally use slang to make a point. I think we're all adults here and can handle it. And as adults i think we can all also agree that disagreeing about a topic does not by default denote more sinister connotations especially when none is implied.

I know you're new here but we jostle a lot in these threads. Everyone here is genuinely passionate about whatever side they adhere to but its never personal and there's no need to read into things beyond what is actually said.
Its sort of like telling a Native American that it is ok for us to use the term "Redskins" ... what is there to be offended about? I mean, it represents a football team for Godsakes.

The term that you used may mean one thing to you, but to another group of people who have suffered the painful affects of that word it may mean something different. To use that word in this context lacked awareness.


.
Reply With Quote