Last week, I had believed that the presentation to Council went well. In the after-math last week, I believe we gained commitment to a program and serving youth, and an open-mindedness about the location in the longer term. That is where I felt the discussion that evening led.
In regard to this article in The Alternative Press, I like the detail about the story, but the ending skewed the article towards a couple of council members' comments about 100 Morris Avenue. The issues with the building at 2 Walnut St are a fact. We can do better for our young people. However, your article failed to mention the preference for Gateway II or Near it, which I had stated 3 or 4 times in the presentation. The options outlined in the last part of the analysis DID NOT INCLUDE 100 Morris Avenue. Therefore, the skewed information was based on two Council Members' comments.
I feel that the last sentence of the last full paragraph of this article is skewed toward one of the options without ample mention of the trade-offs. There was other discussion about locations. The article made the discussion about locations more "final" than it is.
I believe this was a clear "leap frog over analysis towards opinion" and I am tremendously disappointed.
I hope your readership can discern the entire article and not just the last sentence.
Overall, like the '70s commercial of "bottled sauce" versus homemade..."it's in there", but I would have liked to have seen more articulation of our statements about the need for a centrally located youth center as evidenced by the geographical "draw" of youth.
If not, we would be back to Square One.