Thursday, January 24, 2008
In the local paper from a planning meeting
I'm "quoted" in today's News and Advance (that's the Lynchburg paper) lead article.
My actual points for which I'm being "quoted" (Among other things, I said "vetted" not "imbedded"; embedded doesn't even make sense in the context.) were responses to the argument that the townhouses would make the neighborhood unsafe because of the planned occupants (H2B workers) and their proximity to local schools by saying this didn't make sense because:
Also for the record, while the meeting took on a very racial undercurrent, I thought the complaints were primarily borne out of NIMBYism and not racism.
|
My actual points for which I'm being "quoted" (Among other things, I said "vetted" not "imbedded"; embedded doesn't even make sense in the context.) were responses to the argument that the townhouses would make the neighborhood unsafe because of the planned occupants (H2B workers) and their proximity to local schools by saying this didn't make sense because:
- These same tenants are already living in townhouses closer to schools (like my townhouse development) and the commission had approved a larger townhouse complex in the same vicinity (perhaps closer to the schools) just minutes before where these same tenants would likely be located if this development were not approved and nary a peep on the subject of safety (with regard to tenants) was raised.
- Unlike typical tenants, they've had background checks performed on them as part of the H2B process which means, ceteris paribus, they're safer than a typical tenant and certainly far preferable to illegal immigrants (on whom no check is performed) with whom I felt the tenants were erroneously conflated.
Also for the record, while the meeting took on a very racial undercurrent, I thought the complaints were primarily borne out of NIMBYism and not racism.
|
