[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SG-W:/ The Ann Arbor News
I believe you've mixed your examples below. On the one hand you say "every
architect in the city would be pro-growth", but then you say "most
architects I know are definitely against sprawl". Growth is not the same
thing as sprawl.
Is there any reason to believe that architects can't be in favor of
good-quality growth and against sprawl at the same time?
The people running the News are publishers. They own a business. It seems
to me that they just don't take positions that would bite the hand that
feeds them, and they do take positions against things that injure their
pro-development friends. You could also make the argument that they
represent a "minority" viewpoint in the community.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristen A. Gibbs" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: SG-W:/ The Ann Arbor News
> However, to say that their editorial positions have been pro-growth
> because that would increase their circulation is, I think, far too
> simplistic. More likely, the change in editorial positions over time is
> more likely a result of a change in the editors themselves. If we were to
> follow your logic, every architect in the city would be pro-growth because
> it would give them more jobs. That isn't the case; most architects I know
> are definately against sprawl and for a livelier city, at least partly
> because sprawl is so ugly.
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send
email to email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info