Regarding the location, personally I'm fine with any location, as long as it is on Cape Breton Island so that we can reap the economic benefits. I have even offered my own back yard (but I get to collect the admission fees). BUT, the biggest opposition to the Memorial seems to be from people who love the Park. And, with Parks Canada site visits dropping dramatically, there is less and less money to support the Park. So, for those that love the Park, I would think they would want more money to support it. I know that I don't want to see more tax money being poured into Parks that have fewer and fewer visitors. That would not make sense. So, the Park is in trouble already ... allowing the Memorial to be placed in the Park would be a win-win.

It's easy, and I've said it in other forums -- I'm against man-made developments inside the national parks, full stop. This includes hotels and golf courses. But, lacking a time machine to go back and complain to the builders of Highlands Links or Chateau Lake Louise, I can't make my feelings known to them. Weddings? Go for it! Stand in front of a lake or on the shore, have a ceremony, take photos. It's a transitory experience, not intended to change the land and not having a permanent impact. But don't expect me to endorse the idea of building a chintzy wedding chapel and parking lot in the middle of the park. The extent of the park's revenue generation should come from the passes that people buy to drive through it or camp there, or whatever Parks Canada-approved mementos visitors buy at gift shops around the area. Let the hotels and restaurants outside the park get the spinoff economic activity, as has always been the case.

I'll reiterate -- put it outside the park, and then they can build whatever they want (as long as they adhere to whatever local by-laws would apply). Your characterization of the project opponents' position -- implying that we don't want it in the park because of a dearth of trees or coastline -- is willfully missing the point. it doesn't belong in the park because that's not what the purpose of the park is, and there's no need to sacrifice ANY of the park when this monument (and associated giftshop, restaurant, and parking lot) could be put anyplace else. To the questions of tastefulness, I don't know if it would even be possible to come up with worse names than "Commemorative Ring of True Patriot Love" or "We See Thee Rise Observation Deck" - but the ones they've chosen for this project are very telling. These sound like jingoism, not patriotism. Which makes sense, since the foundation lacks all sense of proportion - in either the underlying sentiment or the proposed design.

I thought you were joking: "The Commemorative Ring of True Patriot Love". Agree with you there. Definitely needs a few more iterations. Someone had too much vino tinto during that creative meeting. Ha ha :) My comments were mostly focused on the article's author, though the tone it takes is similar in some of the criticisms out there. Has anyone actually put together the top x reasons they are in opposition to the project in plain language or is it all expressed in such sensitive, somewhat overly pretentious language (i.e. the article's author and those with a similar tone)? For instance, what stands out for me is: > Less about: Utilization of park land, and > More about: Private interests utilizing park land I'd rather see it (at its full scale) in the Sydney Harbour as an anchor for tourism near the downtown sector. I'd go see it there more than once, or every time family from away visits the island. I don't think we need to be so boring. The Statue of Liberty is world renowned and a top tourist attraction. The Colossus of Rhodes was one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world. The much lamented Eiffel Tower is one of the most important tourism draws for Paris to anyone that goes there. We are too creatively limited. Sometimes it seems like perhaps Dubai and Denmark are among the few countries doing anything interesting anymore (albeit in different ways). Well, maybe until Elon Musk inspires development of the first LA to Vegas hyperloop (already in planning phase). #tangent ;) The trees and shoreline comment I made comes from my own bias. It's rooted in the observation that we continually rely on how beautiful the island is, as though we've never seen any other part of the world - and rest on our laurels thinking that is going to be enough to sustain all future tourism. MoneySense Magazine > Travel and Leisure Magazine The former is a quantitative alarm. The latter is glossy Don Draper-ish marketing.

Right off the bat, I'll say that I don't think this monument would be a tourist draw. Obviously, some people disagree. But my feeling is that it would be something people might go see - if they were already here. It's not going to be a destination unto itself. The biggest thing that draws visitors to the island right now is probably the Cabot Trail, and much of its appeal comes from the LACK of man-made additions to the landscape. Scenic attractions don't need adornment, especially since that would detract from what people have come to see. This is why there are no giant statues beckoning to boaters off the coast at Big Sur, nor any waving to hikers on the Milford Track. If you want to add one more reason for people to visit the island, great - but you don't sacrifice our biggest existing attraction to do it. All that being said, I still think the statue is ugly and the details of the proposal are in dubious taste. But if private money builds it, puts it on private land, and maintains it at no cost to the taxpayer - by all means, have at it! I can avoid it if its offends me. That's much harder to do if it gets shoehorned into the park, and it would certainly dominate that corner of it.

Objections to its beauty or lack thereof are subject to taste. There are several valid concerns about the location in particular and the private interests. However, regardless of the politics or local dissent, I would find it very hard to believe that tourists would not be interested in this structure. There are just too many examples of similar type structures that are internationally renowned: Statue of Liberty, Eiffel Tower, Christ the Redeemer in Brazil. Heck, people stop to see the world's largest rubber band ball and all kinds of other pieces of oversized folkart of definitively questionable taste. If it existed, and I was taking people from away to visit Cape Breton, I'm pretty sure it would become one of the sights that I would want to take them regardless of where it was situated. Something of that scale, a the very minimum, is at least interesting - ranging from a curiosity to an inspired experience if the visitors personally connect with its symbolism. Even our locals enjoy taking pictures in front of the "Big Fiddle".

Oh, sure -- no argument there. People want to look at big things. But the supporters seem to think there will be a massive surge of visitors to the island because of the statue, which is so optimistic as to border on unrealistic. Outside of some kind of heavily-promoted and jazzed up commemoration ceremony, I seriously doubt more than a scattered few would make a trip to CB because of it. And it's much more likely that it would diminish the experience of the national park that currently DOES bring people here. And this is all something of a side argument, because my main gripe against putting it in the park is that this more firmly establishes a precedent for the federal government to start selling off pieces of our parks to private industry. I'm firmly against that on principle, and supporting me is the Parks Canada mandate which makes clear that the purpose of designating spaces as national parks is to preserve the areas as they are, in a natural state - not to commercialize them. Nobody visits Quttinirpaaq National Park (and really, who's even heard of it?), but then it wasn't ever set aside to boost tourism on Ellesmere Island. And neither has CB Highlands been. It's nice that it has that appeal, but that's not its raison d'etre.

Agree with you on the precedent and how it could set a dangerous standard. That is one of the strongest arguments against, for sure. Personally, I do think that it can enhance the park, though I wouldn't want it to become monument-creep... i.e. new stuff bolted on in adjacent lots over time. Regards to it drawing people, here's just some quick thoughts: > Within the Atlantic provinces, after the first grand opening I would expect quite a bit of regional tourism. > I would expect an increased volume (%-age to be determined) annually, sourcing from the same regions. > I would expect some Cape Bretoners living "away" to return to see it sometime within a 3-5 year period, if they have any interest in returning at all. > It's unlikely that people outside of the Atlantic provinces would be that compelled to travel here solely for the monument. However, I would anticipate that it could be a part of the selling points when people anywhere are weighing their options as to where to go. > My mom used to work for Tourism Cape Breton sending out information packages requested via their 800 line. This would likely have been something that they would have promoted quite a bit and included in the info packages. > In terms of its side effect for marketing, it would create some tremendous visuals to enhance all future marketing materials (online, print, video, etc) that go out. > It would be a social media hit. Overall, I think it has the potential as a "conversion optimizer", i.e. to help encourage a decision as to where to travel as one of the factors that helps them decide.

Well, if that all turned out to be true -- and it very well might, I've never worked in the tourism industry -- then I imagine everyone would agree that it'd be great to have another attraction on the island. For all that people rail against some anti-development attitude in CB, that's a strawman argument. Good ideas will be supported by the majority of residents here. But even if all opposition to the monument's proposed *design* disappeared, there's still no justification for it being in the park. That being said, the sense I get from the comments I've read online at the Globe & Mail, the Chronicle Herald, CBC.ca, etc. -- is that there's little broad-based appeal in the proposed monument. As a war memorial, it's too big, doesn't speak to any element of our cultural heritage, feels like something that would have been built a century ago, and is devoid of any subtlety - rather than evoke any feelings, it tries to impose them.