Your approach to the conference center issue contributes to the minimal (roughly 6 percent of paid circulation) response rate on your survey up to Nov. 10. It could be because of the multiple shrill and demanding editorials and coverage that you have given the issue, all negative. You demand a public outcry, and that your readership fall into line to support your position or be fools.
You portray the mayor and city commissioners as egotists. Name-calling does not belong here and just diverts the issue from the convention center to how you feel about the officials. Having one’s name on the brass plaque of a failure is hardly what supporters would want, so isn’t it possible that they see the project differently than you do? Ridiculing supporters as promoting weddings as the main revenue stream does us all a disservice. Where is the countervailing coverage?
Let’s help your readership come to their own conclusions. Rather than trying to bully us into accepting your interpretation of recommendations from what is a deeply flawed analysis (May 24 RHC Report to the URA), you might note that most of the compared venues in the report are not comparable or even relevant, that the opportunities for innovative financing mechanisms are not raised, that there is no real demand analysis, and there are no suggestions about positioning in a competitive market.
Please do something to encourage independent thought and analysis, rather than just encouraging everyone to say “no”, which is the easiest thing in the world.
St. Simons Island