Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
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.
|
That doesn't seem plausible. Hiding something scintillating might be plausible, but tree cutting isn't even...interesting to most people. There are a lot of hunters who don't look at that as a black mark, and many meat eaters don't look down on hunting........... and most people support the keeping out of outside golf carts. It is clear to me they acted when they did to shut the Northern borders when they were negotiating about the Southern borders, that is the reason for the abrupt closure of the wall with no explanation. You don't show your hand at the table.
I think that most people who live here are not all excited about "protecting the environment" to the point that trees cut down would bother them. It is the MONEY that is bothering them. So far none of these reasons are striking a cord with me.
Someone cut the trees down on Village property and the district got fined by a government environmental agency and told to replant trees. I think the someones are folks whose views would have been improved by the trees being gone, because those someone's either wanted a clear view to enjoy, or a clear view to market their home to sell. I don't think there was a conspiracy, just some danged ballsy people who think they can do whatever they want. I think it was cash and no one can prove WHO exactly hired it done or who did the cutting.
I think if the New York Times had it on their front page that it wouldn't dampen the enthusiasm of anyone who wants to move here.