[ { "name": "Newsletter Promo", "id": "NewsletterPromo", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "4", "component": "15264767", "requiredCountToDisplay": "0" }, { "name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle CC01 - 300x250 - Inline Content", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "8", "component": "15582119", "requiredCountToDisplay": "12" },{ "name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC01 - 300x250 - Inline Content", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "18", "component": "15582122", "requiredCountToDisplay": "22" },{ "name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle 9 - 300x250 - Inline Content", "class": "inlineCenter", "insertPoint": "28", "component": "15582121", "requiredCountToDisplay": "32" }]
In (his/her/their/its) most recent piece, the Shredder made an important point about eminent domain, that being doing what is best for the greatest number of people ("Tree-huggers in crisis," Aug. 29). So, which is better? Spending $18 million for the benefit of a relatively small group of people, or spending it on transportation that will benefit a larger group of people: elderly people that can't ride bikes, regular people that have more sense, and less affluent people that can neither afford Schwinn beach cruisers nor drinks at Mr. Ricks? You tell me.
Mark Henry
San Luis Obispo
Showing 1-1 of 1