"light a cigar with a $100 bill and smile the contented smile of the filthy, filthy rich"

Ah yes, because that's what the rich do with money, burn it! They don't build things, like new condos that give construction workers jobs, no, they stuff their cash under mattresses and then burn it to fuel their homes.

listen, after the rich pay their deserved higher tax rates, I say thank you for putting money into giving people jobs. Or maybe the Ballard Socialists Club plan to go out and give hard working people good jobs?

Wow, those comments are hi-larious. I like this one:

"what would you think if you bought an asset at public auction based on entirely reasonable assumptions and then were told by an arbitrary group of idiots that your asset is now worth 1/20th what you paid for it. You did nothing wrong, you couldn't possibly have foreseen it...would you feel a bit aggrieved?"

I would...a bit. But then I'd drive my bulldozer over another 100 year old house, light a cigar with a $100 bill and smile the contented smile of the filthy, filthy rich.

Seriously, there's more than one commenter on the Times' web-site who want me to feel bad for the developer. What?!? Must be a slow news day for Ron Paul...

"The manipulation of statistical formulas is no substitute for knowing what one is doing." - Hubert M Blalock Jr.

If this issue were put to public vote, the crushing majority would vote to nuke this embarassing and painfully horrible looking building.

Strike, you're ignoring the bias of self-selection. No amount of outraged internet commenters can prove their "validity," as those who disagree with an article are more likely to comment on it.

The Seattle PI also has a large volume of reader responses. The overwhelming majority of the responses there are also against the Board's decision.

Certainly the internet is not always reflective of consensus. However, at some point, the sample size is large enough to establish the statistical validity of the majority's opinions, as reflected on the two newspaper websites.

Take a sociology course. Large groups never respond to issues until provoked. Like the bumper sticker states: never underestimate the power of a small group to change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. The majority want it demolished however the vocal minority did and usually do show up. My favorite example was the Jean-Marie Le Pen presidential nominee for France a couple years ago. Disliked by everyone for his hatred toward minorities, nobody bothered to shoot him down in primary votes so he made it as the nominee against Chirac where he was pounced as the popular majority responded. It's inertia and large movements take time. I looked forward to the day people begin to understand the cyclical path issues go through.

Good point, Joel. Since nearly all of My Ballard readers live here, the discussions tend to be a little more respectful and constructive. And WSB is right about traffic: My Ballard is still relatively unknown (compared to the West Seattle Blog), so things are a little more subdued... for now. Our traffic is growing like crazy.

Volatility seems to come with two other words that begin with v - visitor volume. Certainly it happened to us on the other side of the bay. But actually I'm posting as someone who also covered the meeting (a West Seattle project was later on the agenda) -- if there was so much opposition, those folks needed to attend the meeting and/or send letters to the Landmarks Board. We say it over and over again in community coverage ... it's great, and vital, to have discussions online, in coffee shops, at the supermarket, wherever, but in the end, you have to get your opinions directly to the decisionmakers to have a chance of being heard.

Well, come on now. Isn't this sort of reaction common? Usually it's the negatives and trolls that seem to come out, regardless of the issue. I hope most agree that the internet is not necessarily always reflective of consensus. :-)

Having said that, here, I find things to be a little less volatile. It's quite nice.