City Council Member for SV, Vedis Vik, pretends (New Time 14.10) to answer my challenge (7.10). But she deftly circumvents to do just that. Is she ribbed for good arguments? The challenge is that her and other SV representatives' position in practice means that the party puts the protection of a free area above the protection of human life. She skips over the fact that the city council is actually facing a choice of values, and that it is its heavy responsibility to prioritize important values over less important values. As the case stands, it is not possible to get both in a bag and a sack.
The city council has no alternative proposals to plots than Husebytomta, despite the individual trying to get public opinion to believe. Vik acknowledges this; she writes that if the city council says no to the Huseby alternative «will work to find an alternative location. . .
To continue reading, create a new free reader account with your email,
or logg inn if you have done it before. (click on forgotten password if you have not received it by email already).
Select if necessary Subscription (69kr)