Thursday, June 07, 2007

Better to Err on the Side of Inconvenience or Vice?

After sleeping on it I have a little more perspective on this tussle. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the other side is correct, and that those of us who might ever think of supporting an overlay in any situation outside of Sylvan Park have too much "religious intensity" about overlays.

What would be the worst thing that you could say about us if it were even true? That we are an inconvenient, impractical impediment? That we are irrelevant? Besides some wasted time and a few errant dollars, what is the worst damage that we cause to people (not plans) if we are irrelevant and too pie-in-the-sky?

If inconvenience is the error on our side, then what would be the extreme of the marketer's side? That they are solely driven by money? That they will tear down or build anything in any community and that they will oppose overlays everywhere in order to protect their profit margin? And isn't the worst thing that you can say about the drive for money is that it makes greedy people? And don't we all know the damage that greed causes?

So, I guess if I were forced to accept the terms of the anti-overlayers (which I don't), then the choice I face is between erring either against the most inconvenient preservationists or against the most vicious money-makers. And being lumped with the scrupulous is supposed to convince me of the soundness of the other side's cause?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment