Rex! Sit!

The City Paper's Dear Libby column conveys a Harried and Hopeless observation about how the Charlotte Avenue overlay vote may be a litmus test of Tygard's light-emitting bill vote along ideological lines. But the way it is written seems to play to only one side of its audience:

One Council member said the Feb. 5 vote on the first reading of the bill served as a line in the sand between the liberal half of the Council (which voted for the resolution) and the conservative half (which voted against it, on behalf of the church congregation).

But couldn't the parentheses, which appear to be editorial comments, have been more balanced and fair to both sides? I'm thinking something along the lines of:

One Council member said the Feb. 5 vote on the first reading of the bill served as a line in the sand between the liberal half of the Council (which voted for the resolution, on behalf of the neighborhood) and the conservative half (which voted against it, on behalf of the church congregation and the potential big-box buyer).

Otherwise, it looks like the CP is lining itself up to report the LED controversy in the same way: liberals against churches. That would be idiotic.