“[I]t seems that opposition to the proposal is being cultivated by misinforming the public,” a man named Howard Rosenburg writes in a letter to the Tribune. “Whether >Save Grant Park is deliberately misinforming people remains to be seen. Either way, people should be sure they are being provided accurate information about the proposal before taking a position.”
As noted in the second item of “The [Thursday] Papers“, Rosenburg has been outed by architectural blogger supreme Lynn Becker as well as by Tribune commenters as the husband of a Children’s Museum employee.
An astute reader points Division Street to another egregious example of non-disclosure.
“For background information, I currently live less than two blocks away from the location,” writes Anne Neri Kostiner. “If anyone does carefully examine the plan, they will see how the claims the opposition are making are either politically or personally motivated or they have not had the opportunity to visit the park to see how it will fit in and replace a dilapidated building which exists there now.”
Kostiner fails to tell readers for background information, though, that she is a member of the Community Development Commission – and that commission members are appointed by the very politically and personally motivated mayor.