I think I get it now. What I was trying to say is that all economic value is directly or indirectly emotional. Stuff is of value because it makes us feel good/ less bad.
I thought I’d let the rest of the Dopers weigh in a bit. A discussion of what we should do with the 16 acres that used to be the World Trade Center is entirely appropriate. Even more so to ask if the economics of trading it for the airports makes sense. Never said it wasn’t a good idea to discuss THAT. It’s the unthinking characterization of the WTC site which BigGirl used (and I’m surprised at her and at Sua Sponte, two of my favorite posters who almost always have useful and informed opinions) that I object to. Surely we can discuss this without UNNECESSARILY hurting people who are already grieving.
As one who worked across the street from the WTC for 14 years—and was there on the morning of 9/11–I strongly support the re-energization of this plot of land with retail and financial services businesses, buildings, gardens, public spaces. What it had before; what gave it life. But I don’t think that we can simply ignore the fact that roughly 2800 people died there one morning. I believe we should respect the special meaning that their deaths–and the manner of those deaths–will give to this site for many decades to come, and we should be as courteous about the feelings of their survivors as we would if we were dealing with members of our own family. “So, whaddya gonna do with your son’s room, Aunt Grace, now that he was murdered? Ya know, you could get a good price if you rented it to a college student!” If you can’t see what’s insensitive about such a statement, I despair.
There was nothing unthinking about it, nor was there anything that any reasonable person could find harmful.
The discussion is explicitly about the economic value of the WTC site. In the context of that discussion, the site is, unambiguously, an undeveloped hole in the ground. To call it anything else in this discussion could lead to misconceptions about its economic value, and that would be harmful, as people may be misinformed and draw incorrect conclusions.
In discussions about the symbolism or emotional importance of the site, it would be an “unthinking characterization.” In this case, Biggirl’s phrase was appropriate.
AuntPam, in the hypothetical you posit, certainly the comment would be insensitive. Unfortunately, your hypothetical bears no relation to the WTC situation. For your analogy to make sense, the WTC grieving families would have to have an ownership interest in the WTC site. They don’t.
If you were renting the room to Aunt Grace and her son, and with the son’s death you are no longer receiving rent payments, eventually you have to say to Aunt Grace, “Listen, we have to figure out what we are going to do with the empty room. I’m having trouble making the mortgage payments.”
Sua
How is calling it an undeveloped hole in the ground ignoring that 2800 people died there? I also worked across the street from WTC. I pass by it often now. If you look passed that metal gate what do you see? It is an undeveloped hole in the ground. This is a fact and not an insult.
I’m not sure what you think I should have called it AuntPam?
Factually: the 16 acres which were the site of the former World Trade Center.
Respectfully: the WTC site (even if it holds special meaning for many New Yorkers).
I think you DO understand my comment. What’s wrong with the following?
Some beachfront development property in Normandy, France (once we get those crosses out of the way).
That big empty weedlot near Gettsyburg, Pennsylvania.
I mean, those are just factual descriptions, right? Right?
Clearly, we can talk about what should happen in downtown NYC. But since you don’t think there’s anything insulting about calling the space “an undeveloped hole in the ground,” why don’t you try it out on someone who lost a relative there? Be sure your medical insurance is paid up first.
Would it kill you to just say “Okay, we could have been a little more sensitive” and get back to the discussion? I don’t see how you plan to win a side argument that says: “I deny that anyone is having the emotions they say they’re having.” They have, after all, been widely reported in the press, and NYC continues to run subway ads urging people with these emotions to call for free counselling.
I acccept completely that you had no intention of deliberately trampling on anyone’s feelings.
If we have decided to redevelop Gettysburg and Normandy, there is nothing wrong with the above.
And we have decided to redevelop the WTC site.
If I am having a discussion of the economic value and redevelopment prospects of the site with a relative of a victim, then I would expect him/her to recognize the actual economic value and redevelopment prospects, and not punch me.
Would it kill you to admit that you are wrong and get back to the discussion? You’re the only one with a problem here; the other participants in this thread are on board.
That’s not the side argument. The side argument is whether we should allow those emotions to distort and obfuscate a rational discussion of the merits of a particular plan to sell the WTC site.
And I don’t see how you plan to win that side argument.
Sua
We will just have to disagree AuntPam. I don’t think stating a fact about the condition of the site is in any way disrespectful to anyone and I really don’t understand why you would either. But hey, to each his own.
A gracious position, Biggirl. When you have that discussion with a relative of a victim, Sua, let us know how it comes out. AS H.L. Mencken used to say, “Dear Sir or Madam, you may be right.”