Two weeks ago, I posted my impression of AJC's headliner caption regarding the drought. I've since received the following email in response, which elevates the topic from "blurb" to "in-play". Should there be further developments, I'll post them here. Enjoy!
Hello,
I have no idea who you are, but I was as upset as you apparently were by the one line taken from my hour-long conversation with a reporter from the AJC. This is what I found on your website: {this URL} After you finish reading this email and know the "rest of the story," I would appreciate your removing this very insulting comment from your site - and please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss further....thanks......Ronnie Orston
{My Jan. 13 quote}
I was as appalled as you were when I saw the caption on the AJC photo. Reread my quote, but emphasize the word "that."
FYI: Here is the email I sent to the reporter on Sunday evening:
My problem is that snippets often skew the facts, as did the caption chosen for my picture, which makes it appear I have no concept of the environmental and economic impact over-development has on our water supply. I stand by my comment about "Mother Nature," as it is obviously incontrovertible. However, in no way was it meant to infer that the fact we are experiencing a drought over which we have no control in any way relieves government of their responsibility to develop a sound and sustainable water management policy. Had there been even a minor elaboration of my comments in the body of the article I would feel my position had been accurately presented.
I clearly remember this question regarded a moratorium on building in North Georgia to help stem the statewide water crisis...and my response to you was that if this plan defines North Georgia as north of Metro Atlanta and the suburbs (including Lake Lanier) it irresponsibly addresses only a small part of the problem and ignores the areas most accountable for growth surpassing resources. I thought I made it abundantly clear that in order to have a viable impact I believed a moratorium on further residential/commercial development must at least include the areas responsible for the major drain on our water supplies. I said I would have to be able to review the entire proposal.
Because I am RE Broker as well as a concerned citizen, it could appear: that I am against any restrictions that might affect my personal business interests; I am apathetic; or even worse - ignorant when it comes to environmental/economic issues. I can assure you I am none of the above.
So just to set the record straight, I strongly support a temporary halt to further development - but it must include the areas that are already so overbuilt that in the best of times our water supply could become inadequate without having permanent restrictions or alternative solutions in place. We cannot simply focus on locales that might present the path of least resistance, or the smallest voting bloc. We cannot single out a portion of the state to solve a problem that affects us all and expect that mandate to be embraced by the local governments on a moratorium hit list. In an ideal world it should be all about equity, and a statewide problem requires statewide cooperation.
I realize that editorial control plays a large part in what is ultimately included/cut from an article and I can't count the times I have heard the expression, "That was taken out of context." Unfortunately it is all too often true, and unfair to those of us who take these issues very seriously and take the time to share them with you.
|
| |
