Why do some criticize every citizen activist?
A letter writer in this column criticized well-meaning and informed citizens who question the ill-conceived Queen City Landing apartment tower. This writer did not argue the issue but rather attacked the opponents, an ad hominem attack – a logical fallacy. He also confuses “new” with “progress,” a common mistake made by a lot of local people because they see so little true progress they’re desperate for anything and won’t differentiate the good from the bad.
Why ill-conceived? This proposal plops a large building where there are no other properties of the sort and will require taxpayer subsidies. Its mediocre design will stick out like a giant middle finger on the shoreline. It will also present a hazard to birds in a designated important bird flyway. Buildings are the No. 1 cause of bird kills, and the taller, the worse, many times more so than the wind turbines up the coast.
The writer praises the developer’s $60 million to invest, but some percentage of that project cost will be borne by the taxpayers. He’s already asking for brownfield cleanup credits. Who benefits? The wealthy developer and upper-income tenants, not the taxpayers.
Ironically, the writer mentions the Statler as a bad decision. The Queen City Landing developer is the very same who owned the Statler for 15 years and the only thing he did was drive it to the brink of foreclosure for back taxes before flipping it to notorious developer Bashar Issa.
Don’t confuse “new” with “progress.”