Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
You know why it's actually different than cutting down trees? Because they didn't cut any trees down.
I love the faux-outrage over this non-issue. Some woman planted some potatoes in a derelict vacant lot, and suddenly the cops have to be involved, and it's a property rights outrage.
And before I get the inevitable "how would you like it bla bla bla...", if I owned a vacant lot on 17th avenue, I wouldn't care if the neighbours put removable planters in there while it sat empty, because I'm not a petty jackass*.
Now look, maybe your method of planting potatoes in planters differs from mine, but, you know, plantin' potatoes, and cuttin' down trees, ain't the same ####in' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same ####in' sport.
*and yes, I do realize the irony in saying I'm not petty, when here I am arguing about this non-issue on the internet with strangers
|
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
Fact, this group didn't like looking at an empty ugly lot, so they put a lot of effort into improving the looks. Like it or not this is no different than cutting down trees that don't belong to you because you want a better view.
Millionaires wanted a better view of the city, cut down trees.
Non-millionaires wanted a better view of their community, planted potatoes in decorative tire planters.
The "feeding the community" angle is just a red herring to distract from their ultimate intention of having a nicer view from their home.
Now, we can agree or disagree that the by product of these actions (lost public trees VS community food) are not equal, but don't act like the motivators were any different.
But hey, keep on raging against the machine if you must.