|This email (above) to PNJ was sent Thursday morning from the dais while I was at the BCC meeting. Instead of considering my op-ed for publication, PNJ wrote a hatchet piece attacking me three days later in the Sunday edition.....|
But Instead of publishing it or considering it for publication--PNJ instead wrote a hit piece attacking me this morning which is ridiculous and disappointing. Most folks who take a step back and look at this whole bridge-naming issue can clearly see that a compromise is in order here. And this is exactly what I have proposed in my viewpoint. Too bad PNJ didn't print it.
But then I started looking into the PNJ's previous writings on the plan to name the bridge after General James--and lo and behold apparently they have already made a decision on this via an editorial that was printed over the Christmas holiday last year. I was out of the state and did not see it when it was first printed. Okay, so PNJ believes that this is a great plan--no problem.
But what is wrong with taking a step back, asking some important questions, and figuring this whole thing out via a rational process--or even a citizen's committee? What is wrong with my idea of honoring both men? I guess this must simply be "TOO Controversial"---not my idea of having a dual designation on the bridge--but rather having the audacity to disagree with a position with which the PNJ have already taken.