A tree for the forest
From a recent letter to the editor at the Times Union: Dianne O'Neill, a Ten Broeck Triangle property owner, argues that St. Joe's "may indeed have to come down" for the sake of the neighborhood. "Let's not destroy the forest for the sake of one tree." Earlier: No brewery for St. Joe's -- so now what?
Say Something!
We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.
Comments
There are a few others in the neighborhood who have the same position; although very few will publicly say it. Basically, there are a lot of older residents who want nothing to change, and if that means the building comes down, then so be it. Sure they might say they want to find "alternative uses," but then they are there ready to shoot down any viable idea out of hand, because it would take parking or make noise.
Even though I strongly disagree with the writer of this letter, I applaud her intellectual integrity. In the end there are really only two choices for the neighbors: either you recognize that the neighborhood's life will have to change to preserve the building, or you admit that you care more about the neighborhood's life than the building, and thus you'd rather just have it come down.
There is no sense in the neighbors continuing to talking about what they want for the building, like they get to pick. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and as the sooner everyone comes to grips with that reality the sooner we can really figure out what should be "done next."
... said Jackers on Feb 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM | link