An article in today's TNT outlines a supposed compromise in the WSHS donor wall debate. The new idea would call for adding "a glass panel" to the proposed wall.

Link Jason Hagey's article in today's TNT

I truly hope the city understands that there's no compromise in something that is meant first to route traffic toward the history museum's front door and only second to honor the donors that helped save Union Station. Adding a larger, glass covered view hole adds insult to injury when considering this opportunity to open up a great pedestrian avenue in our city. A true compromise would honor donors and enhance pedestrian access.

Tell me what you really think
Donors and museum attendance aside, who just plain wants to be able to walk freely where the fence was and the wall may go? Take the poll or, as always, comments are welcome.

Thanks Erik!

Update (2006-10-15 2:55pm)
Director of the WSHM David Nicandri has an editorial out in today's Trib. It's good to hear some elaboration from his perspective concerning the donor wall. The tone certainly leaves something to desire. The "rumors" we've been putting out here on the blogosphere both in posts and comments are merely an openly participatory conversation between folks that care a great deal about Tacoma and our downtown. I'm not a big fan of name calling but I'll certainly voice my opinion and try to bring about supporting ideas and/or examples to make my case.

I found out about the wall by seeing some activity at the site and asking a construction worker about it. Then it was a wall. It became a donor wall from info over at Exit133. From there, Councilmember Anderson inquired about it and the stop work order was issued. If she learned about it from a blog or by passing it on the street it's information that troubled her considering some past tacit agreement concerning any obstructions on the site. We voice our opinions here online because we can. Whether we do so here, in emails or phone calls, while sitting in a coffee shop, or during the City Council's public comment period, it's all conversation important to keeping involved in our city.

There's nothing easy about increased participation mainly because opinions will inevitably clash. I would always wager that open participation at any point in any process is valuable if it helps those making final decisions in making better informed ones.