Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
yes it does.
Agreed...but part of the argument is that a new museum will attract tourists. I dont believe that is true at all, at least to the extent where it would validate the cost associated.
Not sure if you are referring to the bridge or the museum here. They are seperate issues but both require taxpayer money. However, there is no law that states you cant build something both aesthetically pleasing and functional that doesnt allow for some return on investements either. Perhaps the new museum will allow for that, but I highly doubt it.
|
I really don't agree on the first part. The individual point is valid, but it's not a valid argument for or against the bridge if that's what you're standing on, which is what too many do on both sides, as you agree with in the second part of your post. Mostly I agree with your points here, and I wasn't really directing my quote of your first post at you, more so at the people who are living and dying by this being or not being a tourist draw on its own.