Kind of amazing. In my head this is basically saying "we can't protect people in parts of downtown Vancouver and rather than change that, it may just be easier to abandon the area.
I'm not understanding what premise you're rejecting.
Are you okay with the lawyers having additional security as long as they don't move the court? Even though a few years of paying for that security would probably cost more than repurposing a different building would?
I thought I made it extremely plain I reject your entire premise and logic
I'm not understanding what premise you're rejecting.
Are you okay with the lawyers having additional security as long as they don't move the court? Even though a few years of paying for that security would probably cost more than repurposing a different building would?