I'm not pretending to be an expert on this specific situation. That's mostly weighing in on The insider outside her conflict and the question of skin in the game, which plays out frequently in the situations.

Maybe it was a no-brainer in this situation, but that certainly isn't the picture that the article painted, with 20 years of activism to persuade the damn owner and operator to take them out instead of refurbishing them.

Similarly, if it's such an obvious win-win, why do 80% of the locals not view it that way? Do you think they're simply wrong and have nothing to lose?

I just want to point out that you're skeptical of this author and publication because of their politics, but also you're taking the article at face value as a full and complete description of the situation.

If _you_ didn't do any research and just decided the situation validated your priors, why is it surprising that locals do the same thing?