Over the last few months I've noticed a lot of articles and comments on articles that are increasingly difficult to follow without context.
Two sides get into an argument, and one side says that "this" is "just like that [insert whatever it was in the past]." We've never done such-and-so before! This will set a bad precedent.
Reading any news source, as far back as I can remember, may always have been akin to the ant walking across the dots of ink that make up letters and pictures on the page: Any time he looks down, all he sees is a world that is "black" if he's on a dot, or "white" if he's not. No big picture. Worse yet, too easily manipulated by the present writer's bias, poor memory, rushed deadline, indifference, too trusting nature, hyperbole, et cetera.
Seems to me we're missing out here.
My suggestion here, then, is that we look for opportunities to develop evergreen timelines that can be referenced against such needs for context. And, rather than tossing this out sans commitment, I've put together what I know of the 232 Monroe Street brownfield cleanup chronology.