[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by urban1

Im in agreement with others that it seems the idea was to close the road first and then find something do with the closed road. Looks the like the festival could have been held on the pathways and adjacent grassy areas without closing the road. The cost of the road closure could have been redirected to other areas of the fetival itself like activities for the kids.

This issue wouldn't have even come up if the festival wasn't in the works. If nothing was in the works, no one would have asked to close the road. It costs money to close a road, you don't just close a road without a reason.

Also, why does everyone think this is organized by Druh Farrell? Did she even have anything to do with organizing the festival? There is no mention of her name on the website (other names are mentioned). I'm guessing the media attached her name to the festival, back when the council was debating the idea, and she was in support of the festival, AND that it's in her ward.

And that brings us to the third misconception, and that is Council voted to have the road closure. They did no such thing. All they did was debate whether they should have a say in who can close a road or not (provided that the proper payments are made). They very rightly came to the conclusion that they don't have a say in that, as that is what the transportation department is for. They do the determining. Plus, any citizen has always been able to get a temporary road closure. I've done in personally myself. Council can set the priorities for the transportation dept, but they don't need to be involved in every minor little decision. That is the issue here.

Thanks to the media for totally misleading most people in the city on this one.