Viewer’s Voice for Monday April 21, 2008
John Carlin
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
By John Carlin
WSLS10 Anchor
Published: April 21, 2008
Our coverage of the one year anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech received praise from several viewers. But this one questioned a fundamental aspect of our reasoning.
(e-mail)
I just want to know why ALL the coverage of the remembrance of the April 16th tragedy only referred to 32 victims. Although the actions of Cho were horrific and unexplainable, was he not a victim also? What type of demons must he have had in his head to commit such a horrible act against other people. I did not hear a single news cast add him to their list of victims. He was a student at VA Tech, he was a Hokie, and he was his parent’s child. 33 people lost their lives on that day, and ALL should be remembered. ...
WSLS responds: Thanks for the comment. Our goal in covering the one year anniversary was to cover the events and thoughts put forth by the university community—to be the eyes and ears of those who could not attend themselves. Not a single reporter heard any mention of Cho’s name.
Our story on people living in downtown Roanoke who may lose a free parking space, caught the attention of this viewer who’s lived in other downtowns.
(phone)
I have grown up in Roanoke and lived in urban areas up and down the east coast. And part of being in an urban setting is parking issues. And you know that going in when you choose to live downtown. In many cities you cannot even access a parking space at any cost. And part of the urban lifestyle is giving up a second a car—or a first car… Either people want Roanoke to be an urban area with all the charm of living in an urban area or they don’t…
Teresa
Vinton
Post a Comment
Please Log In
Comment posting requires free registration with WSLS 10.
Already have an account? Please log in.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( downtown resident ) on April 22, 2008 at 8:22 am
Unlike other larger, already developed “urban areas,” downtown Roanoke depends on the investment of individuals to provide a vibrant downtown scene for everyone in the area. In time, we are told, the synergy of downtown residents will bring more small businesses, more varied restaurants and cultural life, and perhaps one day a grocery store to serve foot traffic. Until then, like every other Roanoker, downtown residents must drive to buy staples not available on the city market. And some must also drive to work outside of the city center. There is little to no public transportation available except to Blacksburg or malls from downtown.
City Council has bent over backward to support certain downtown living projects, like the Hancock building that will offer rental units for ten years, until it is turned into condos when the grant runs out. In ten years we hope that the downtown scene has changed and that many young professionals are choosing to stay in the area due to the quality of life, not just downtown but in the natural environment surrounding us.
After directing between 800 and 900 thousand dollars to the Hancock project alone, now council would try to collect about $9000 in additional revenue by penalizing the downtown owners already invested. This is neither fair nor smart, especially when council has its own spending problems that far outstrip $9000! Get your own house in order, Council. And when investing in one project over another with taxpayer money, make sure you do not create a parking problem and solve it by penalizing owners already invested in downtown Roanoke.