Seems like damage control. The editorial on the subject bends over backwards to make the Irvings look good:
"...And Irving has a strong tradition of giving -- and a commitment to historical preservation -- in communities all across the province. It would be unreasonable to suggest Irving has held onto the building with the sole intent of watching it fall apart.
But it's just as unreasonable to suggest a private company must spend $2 million to preserve a building --"
In other words: All the criticism of Irving on this issue has been unreasonable.
It's amazing really, that an Irving paper can write an editorial like this without the slightest embarrassment.
2 comments:
Seems like damage control. The editorial on the subject bends over backwards to make the Irvings look good:
"...And Irving has a strong tradition of giving -- and a commitment to historical preservation -- in communities all across the province. It would be unreasonable to suggest Irving has held onto the building with the sole intent of watching it fall apart.
But it's just as unreasonable to suggest a private company must spend $2 million to preserve a building --"
In other words: All the criticism of Irving on this issue has been unreasonable.
It's amazing really, that an Irving paper can write an editorial like this without the slightest embarrassment.
There is nothing to preserve. Are people thick or plain stupid?
When all is said and done a new building would need to be constructed; that will not be the Train Station.
Please stop giving them opportunities for their lame excuses!
Post a Comment