Historic bridge to be partly dismantled to accommodate Jeff Bezos’s yacht

[Economy 52,844]

5 minutes ago, Kitsch said:

I don’t think you understand that it is quite bad. The bridge is a ‘Rijksmonument’ (National Monument) and it didn’t get destroyed during the bombing of Rotterdam by Nazi-Germany (the city was annihilated by the bombardement). It was built between 1925 and 1927 and it is marked under the following reason:

“Lifting bridge dating from 1925-27 of general interest because of its architectural and cultural-historical value and architecturally innovative value as the first example of an asymmetrically movable lifting bridge in the Netherlands. Also important because of the urban development and situational value as a reminder of the aerial railway and because of the characteristic image-defining silhouette, visible in the wide perimeter of the Koningshaven.”

And there are specific reasons why these national monuments are protected. For example, persons living in a national monument basically need approval of the government for renovating a building. I’ve heard that it is so hard to renovate a building because it literally needs to be renovated to how it was.

Also, I am not completely updated on the news, but it appears that no formal request have been sent to the municipality of Rotterdam which is needed. But I think the moral of the story is 1) why would someone design a yacht this big that it couldn’t sail away from the harbour to begin with and 2) that someone with this much wealth could do something like this at all.

Ok ur telling me why the bridge has historical value (which i never questioned in the first place) but ur not really explaining what the actual harm done here is

 

If its being put back and expenses payed by him what exactly is the loss or damage? The short time its lifted? If thats the issue the publicity alone more than makes up for it. For example i didnt know about this till now. If anything more ppl knowing about it now will enhance its value

 

Again, i dont think anyone should be so rich to be able to casually do this before someone mistakenly accuses me of defending his wealth but thats a seperate issue to what were discussing which is the harm done here

[Kimmo 82,283]

15 minutes ago, WheresMy911Alice said:

Omg Daddy Bezos...who knew 

@Kimmo

The ultimate Daddy! 

[Bling 31,680]

48 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

The ultimate Daddy! 

Not me turning my brightness up all the way and zooming in 

[Pennywise 36,080]

2 hours ago, Economy said:

Ok ur telling me why the bridge has historical value (which i never questioned in the first place) but ur not really explaining what the actual harm done here is

 

If its being put back and expenses payed by him what exactly is the loss or damage? The short time its lifted? If thats the issue the publicity alone more than makes up for it. For example i didnt know about this till now. If anything more ppl knowing about it now will enhance its value

 

Again, i dont think anyone should be so rich to be able to casually do this before someone mistakenly accuses me of defending his wealth but thats a seperate issue to what were discussing which is the harm done here

I think the harm done here is the precedent being set. The rich already thought that they could do anything and get away with anything and this just further proves that. I think, no matter how much they pay, the city government should not let this happen even just to say that you don't get to have everything you want just because you are rich. 

[Not The Real Gaga 7,582]

Who cares if he is paying for it

[BBhomemaker 5,611]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

Ok ur telling me why the bridge has historical value (which i never questioned in the first place) but ur not really explaining what the actual harm done here is

 

If its being put back and expenses payed by him what exactly is the loss or damage? The short time its lifted? If thats the issue the publicity alone more than makes up for it. For example i didnt know about this till now. If anything more ppl knowing about it now will enhance its value

I do not agree with you, they told you this cause it’s calling protecting historic sites, this bridge already have a value, they told you its importance during World War, it’s a symbol for them. It’s part of their cultural heritage. And yeah it might just be a bridge, but would you destroy a monument just cause a capricious kid can afford it ?

if you allow it, you damage its value and the publicity that its receiving rn aint gonna enhance its value at all, it will be known as « the bridge that Jeff Bezos destroyed for its yatch » and no, nobody will book a whole trip just to see it, it will never bring an amount of tourists that will drastically change the economy of the country to become the most popular spot 

The jobs created to make it possible is nice, but only for a short time, while investing in the protection of the bridge and its attractiveness (transforming it into an actual historical place) could bring stable jobs (museum, guides, security, maintenance..) but only the region can decided ofc

now imagine doing this to the Eiffel Tower (another modern construction, but also a symbol for a country that had a role in World War) yeah i take one of the most well known monument as example and its for showing you that the popularity of a monument don’t justify that we allow it to be altered, it still have meaning no matter.

Now whats the price to destroy our heritage ? 
 

Also wouldn’t it make more sense for the billionaire to just…destroy his own boat or buy another one since he can afford it? 

[Helxig 45,336]

This is what I mean when I say no one person should have this amount of money. This is just a little weekend away for him. Absolutely insane. I don't have the words to express everything this makes me feel. Guillotine

[HEARTSTOP 3,154]

1 hour ago, Pennywise said:

I think the harm done here is the precedent being set. The rich already thought that they could do anything and get away with anything and this just further proves that. I think, no matter how much they pay, the city government should not let this happen even just to say that you don't get to have everything you want just because you are rich. 

Exactly.

Also, thousands if not millions of people who use the bridge for work etc will be affected by the fact that the bridge won't be there for at least 2 weeks. Sure, the people in construction will be paid minimum wage for 2 weeks, but lots of other people will probably lose money from it. And the ones getting the real money are in government anyway, who knows what they'll actually do with it...

[Economy 52,844]

6 hours ago, Pennywise said:

I think the harm done here is the precedent being set. The rich already thought that they could do anything and get away with anything and this just further proves that. I think, no matter how much they pay, the city government should not let this happen even just to say that you don't get to have everything you want just because you are rich. 

Ok fair enough, if its about the message it sends i can agree with this. I thought u mainly meant the bridge itself

5 hours ago, HEARTSTOP said:

Exactly.

Also, thousands if not millions of people who use the bridge for work etc will be affected by the fact that the bridge won't be there for at least 2 weeks. Sure, the people in construction will be paid minimum wage for 2 weeks, but lots of other people will probably lose money from it. And the ones getting the real money are in government anyway, who knows what they'll actually do with it...

Ooof since when do construction workers get payed minimum wage?

 

At least where I live excluding White Collar proffessions or jobe that require a lot of degrees construction is literally the best paying job u can get with just highschool. Ppl literally make $30/h to $35/h doing construction and if its a high skill type of construction or trade they can make over $40/h

 

I know its not like this everywhere but i still have a hard time fathoming minimum wage for construction especially in a prosperous Country like Denmark. Are u sure about this?

[Lona Delery 7,227]

6 hours ago, HEARTSTOP said:

Exactly.

Also, thousands if not millions of people who use the bridge for work etc will be affected by the fact that the bridge won't be there for at least 2 weeks. Sure, the people in construction will be paid minimum wage for 2 weeks, but lots of other people will probably lose money from it. And the ones getting the real money are in government anyway, who knows what they'll actually do with it...

the bridge hasnt been in use for years. noone is affected, besides maybe tourists who wanna snap a picture

 

anyways, apparently theyve already done that in the past for othet yachts, but honestly... why not build your shipyard closer to the ocean, rather than doing whatever the **** this is

[HEARTSTOP 3,154]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Ok fair enough, if its about the message it sends i can agree with this. I thought u mainly meant the bridge itself

Ooof since when do construction workers get payed minimum wage?

 

At least where I live excluding White Collar proffessions or jobe that require a lot of degrees construction is literally the best paying job u can get with just highschool. Ppl literally make $30/h to $35/h doing construction and if its a high skill type of construction or trade they can make over $40/h

 

I know its not like this everywhere but i still have a hard time fathoming minimum wage for construction especially in a prosperous Country like Denmark. Are u sure about this?

I assumed based on the way things are in Portugal, it might not be true. Plus, minimum wage in the NL might not be as bad.

Also, someone else already said the bridge isn't being used anyway.

[Debithius 6,056]

On 2/8/2022 at 9:58 PM, Economy said:

I mean considering its temporary and hes paying the expenses... At least its providing work for the ppl that will be doing the dismantalling

 

This really isnt that bad. I think the symbolism that someone is wealthy enough to achieve this is the real problematic part not the event itself

The problem is that they said they would never do it again and here they are....doing it again.

[Economy 52,844]

3 hours ago, Debithius said:

The problem is that they said they would never do it again and here they are....doing it again.

Never do what again? Dismantelling the bridge? I assume ur refering to a totally different context in history? Or do u mean a literal temporary dismanteling for a commercial purpose that they said they wouldnt do again?

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

[Dojo 19,823]

i told him that i'm a humble eyeland gyal and i wanted a small boat but he never listens

always trying to impress me