Wow, this article reads very biased in favor of the NIMBYs, especially right out of the gate (it does bring in some counter-narratives by the middle/end). “real concerns” is an unnecessary adjective that downplays the fact that one of these concerns appears to be TOD causing traffic and parking issues as if the alternative wouldn’t and another appears to be endangerment of seniors without a clear causal link. “established low-density neighborhoods” as if no infill/up zoning should ever take place and we should only ever build towers on farmland at the outskirts of the city where they would definitely drive high car usage and traffic for inner neighborhoods. The writer is speaking from the perspective of the project opponents, but does not make it clear that these are biased perspectives being reported on and not facts, especially with the “real” preface
Yeah, oh traffic congestion? Heaven help us!
I get it, the problem is everybody else’s cars, not their cars.
“Fuck you, I got mine.”
Wow, this article reads very biased in favor of the NIMBYs
CBC.
As much as CBC says they don’t have a bias, they, like the Star, are the water-carriers for wealthy urban progressives. They’re okay with economic progressivism in general terms, just not in their back yard, thank you. Safe-injection site? Sure, I’m okay with that, as long as it’s not anywhere I can see it and my property taxes don’t go up.
This is as opposed to wealthy conservatives (who are usually just more economically regressive, and read the Globe & Mail or the National Post, and watch Report on Business) or poor conservatives (who read the Sun and either CP24 or a Fox rebroadcast)
Notice that there’s no economically progressive mass-media? That’s intentional: no one with the power to own media at scale wants anything to do with economic justice.
