• The post you are reporting:
   
  Hi everyone. I'm Stuart, a long term reader here who's finally got around to registering. I'm probably going to regret stepping into this discussion, but here goes anyway.
  It seems to me that whilst the passions run high on both sides, the argument really boils down to whether the eventual loss of the historical heritage on the Western Heights would be a price worth paying for protecting the natural beauty by stopping all development. For my part, I feel it would be a tragedy to allow the heritage to continue to decline whilst we await a knight in shining armour (presumably not Sir Gawain) to ride in with the hundreds of millions required to make a difference. If we continue to oppose every investment possibility in the hope that a better one will come along soon, we will soon enough find we have little of nothing left to protect. Having said that, I do understand the concern that I think pretty much everyone shares about the nature of any development on WH. Nobody wants to see that area covered in concrete, and I'm sure that will never be allowed. As for the War Memorial, I cannot understand why anyone would oppose that, unless of course they just don't want people visiting the WH.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason