Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
QUOTE=Madelaine Amee;1092085
Of course, TV knows who had this work done
Why do you say that? What would make them cover it up? How could the District get anything out of this to benefit them? I just don't understand. WHAT am I missing???????????
Someone said that the tree cutting deal would make The Villages look bad. I say, big whoopin' deal. Sex on the Square makes The Villages look bad. People who don't live here, don't care if people cut down trees. It's not shocking, hardly interesting. If I read that a man from Reynoldsburg, Ohio cut down trees in the middle of their town square, I wouldn't turn up the TV and huddle close. It just isn't news worthy.
|
Sex on the square is something TV can't do anything about. This is different. Considering how closely information about anything is held by TV, to me it is logical that for such a small sum (to them, and especially because they won't have to pay that sum), they would rather not have any publicity at all. I think they would want to control any little damage they could. It's just good business practice.
But to me, I would think that the damage is already done, and they would be better off having the responsible parties right the wrong so they could "show the world" that they are conscientiously trying to protect the environment. Especially with such a black mark as the hunting debacle on their record. And the fact that they chopped down every single healthy live oak on the Pine Ridge property a la 1970s-style development practices. And the poor publicity they brought down on themselves with their enigmatic behavior over the "Berlin Wall" saga, for whatever reason. So is there something else about this that we're not aware of that's making them want to drop the matter?
There are two ways to go with this; bury it or bring it to light and take credit for correcting it. I would hope they choose the latter, but it doesn't look like they have.