grmetro

To further illustrate my point (because I think it is worth making and I apologize for beating a dead horse), those taking the "so-called" moral high ground would argue that not contributing to the tax role, etc. does not qualify as a lack of contribution. The homeless contribute in alternative ways and simply because they do not contribute to our preconceived ideas of economic value does not make them any less important. The homeless offer value and our city needs no saving from them. The counter arguments are always predictable and establish a unarguable basis without being labeled cold-hearted or discriminatory. I'm now done expressing my annoyance with such arguments. Thank you for permitting me the opportunity to voice my displeasure.

My point about you taking the moral high ground was that you establish an unrealistic framework of which no argument can be made. Yes, we all aspire for candy clouds and bubble gum sidewalks but some of us realize that will never be reality and choose to tackle real life problems in a way that can have actual solutions. You harp on others for not aspiring for candy clouds and criticize when realistic solutions are posed. Your argument is not won but rather acknowledged as fool-hardy and Utopian. Simply because people stop responding to you does not mean you've won, but perhaps you've lost their attention. Moral low ground, as you call it, (I prefer realism) may be the world we should all start dealing in.

I love taking the moral high ground. My heart is bigger than yours. I care about other people more than you and therefore the foundation of my argument is untouchable because I've established that you are hard-hearted and not nearly as compassionate as I. The homeless are people. The homed are people. From what I've read there has been no mention of shutting the shelters and saying "good riddance" but merely mentions of suggestions that the best use for the area is no longer for homeless shelters and that other areas may be bettered suited. That should be the conversation not moral superiority. I'm all about a big heart but I occasionally like to consult my brain, which is capable of caring for humankind whilst also understanding the ever-changing realities of a progressive economy (which happens to help both the homeless and the homed). This conversation can establish ideas to benefit both the homeless and the homed. And can we please address the situation in real terms. We can couch every conversation about the homeless as those just needing a cup of soup (which many are) but we also need to acknowledge that there is a contingent of the homeless that are drug dependent, mentally unstable. potentially harassing, and perhaps not as "vibrant" or "diverse" as previously described. A productive conversation should admit and acknowledge all facets of an issue.

They are rebuilding. There is some demo being done in the still standing building. I believe they plan to have a sports bar as part of the new build. Maybe that will be a good place to watch the beautiful game!

It reminds me of the library at Valparaiso University (The Christopher Center)

There was an access garage that i thought they were making into retail space. Has that project come to fruition?

I've seen many a photo of the Aldrich building w/ the wrapping paper. I don't, however, have any in my possession but the DeVries website does. I would bet that if you call Janene at DeVries she could help you out if you let her know that you are a photo junky. DeVries has some other great shots of their restoration projects and many before and afters on their website. The work they are doing on Clear Water Place is amazing. Check it out: www.devriescompanies.com