Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

t0reup t1_j91qizz wrote

Gone from the city's budget and unavailable for services to the people who funded said budget.

Not that hard to comprehend, right?

−13

Outrageous-Pause6317 t1_j92c7yb wrote

It was privately funded. Not city money.

20

t0reup t1_j92d507 wrote

Fair enough. Private money can be spent however they want. Was the land purchased as well? What was there previously?

−13

amaninseattle t1_j92kn70 wrote

Desperately trying to save your argument from your own lack of knowledge.

19

t0reup t1_j92l859 wrote

It's still a horrible sculpture. I don't care if private people wanna waste their money tho.

−5

barneysfarm t1_j91qm7k wrote

That isn't what you said.

Why you changing your words around now?

7

t0reup t1_j91qppz wrote

That is what I said. I just had to break it down a little further for those that were struggling to comprehend my simple message.

−5

barneysfarm t1_j91qvgq wrote

Lol whatever you say. You equated it to a complete waste instead of recognizing that money still has value in the community via its recipients.

4

t0reup t1_j91r0nu wrote

It was a complete waste of funds. It is not relevant that the money still exists in the economy.

5

barneysfarm t1_j91r4ti wrote

No it wasn't, many families were able to pay bills and engage in economic activity from what they earned from the project.

That's valuable whether you acknowledge it or not.

5

t0reup t1_j91r8j5 wrote

Outside of throwing the money in the river, any project would've accomplished that.

9

barneysfarm t1_j91rhqx wrote

Or throwing it out the window as you said. Which was an egregious misrepresentation of what transpired, moreso reflecting your views than any objective reality of the situation. It's no surprise you've backpeddled here afterwards.

4

copperpoint t1_j92lja4 wrote

It was paid for by Embrace Boston, a nonprofit organization. It was all donor funded.

2