From our friend Dan Knauss in Milwaukee on this recent Journal-Sentinel piece (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=749831):
This is at least the second time I’ve seen a recent story on Longworth that picks up on a comparison he’s making between a category of cities-that-can-be-saved (Milwaukee is one) and others that are the negative examples, apparently beyond saving or virtually guaranteed to go on in terminal decline. This gets attention, but is it accurate? St. Louis may be barely half as big as it once was, but is it really just a “strange, empty, echoing place?”
If Youngstown, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. really are in the category of those that “truly may not come back,” how do we interpret “may”?
Sounds like Dan should talk to our friends in Buffalo.