Making the final decision before answering the following questions could be sheer invalid and unrealistic. As mentioned above, the number of shoppers who came to Central Plaza has been decreasing for over two years, yet does the time when those skateboard users showed up in the plaza match the timeline?  And how could those shop owners ascribe litter and vandalism to skateboarders?  Commonly, economic and other objective circumstances have changed dramatically today after two years, thus it is not acceptable to assert that “business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels”.

To correlate the increasing number of skateboarders with the decreasing number of shoppers in Central Plaza is rather hasty, though, determined by the nature of skateboarding, players need spacious areas, which makes it easy to link with abandoned Central Plaza. Finding a suitable place and then gathering so many skateboarders here take time, therefore it is more likely that this plaza has already lost popularity until skateboarding bloomed here.

The argument falsely assumes by mistake that skateboarders are the only factor causing littering and “vandalism”. Indeed, skateboarders would bring rubbish, but they were more likely to be scapegoats for others, for anyone passing by may drop litter as well. The same thing goes for vandalism. Skateboarders would be improbable to skate in unsafe and easily broken places or to sabotage the ground they rely on, and they always prefer outside rather than inside places with bare ground rather than marble. So, it is unacceptable to regard the damage as intentional without solid evidence. Shop owners should consider natural damage, due to rainwater or wind, and another man-made reason, due to neglected maintenance, as well.

Besides, the current situation may not support an ideal recovery. Two-year-old decoration styles and “sabotaged” facilities might not captivate consumers and thus need renovation, while renovation needs budgets. And when it comes to subjective conditions, if unpopularity came from fallacious business strategies at all, then how to make sure that this time superiors will not go down the same road? Therefore, it is unreasonable and blind to just shift the responsibility to skateboarders. In other words, look for your intrinsic factors rather than others’.

In conclusion, look before you leap. If shop owners accept the “recommendation” without thinking twice, they may inhibit not only skateboarders but also hundreds of bystanders at skateboarding shows including potential consumers.

( Revised parts are highlighted.)

Making the final decision before amply answering the following questions could be sheer invalid and unrealistic. As mentioned above, the number of shoppers who came to Central Plaza has been decreasing for over two years, yet does the time when those skateboard users showed up in the plaza match the timeline? And how could those shop owners ascribe the litter and vandalism to skateboarders? Commonly, economic and other objective circumstances have changed dramatically today after two years, thus it is not acceptable to assert that “business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels”.

To correlate the increasing number of skateboarders with the decreasing number of shoppers in Central Plaza is rather hasty, though, determined by the nature of skateboarding, players need spacious areas, which makes it easy to link with abandoned Central Plaza. Finding a suitable place and then gathering such many skateboarders here take time, therefore it is more likely that this plaza has already lost popularity until skateboarding bloomed here.

The argument falsely assumes by mistake that skateboarders are the only factor to cause littering and “vandalism”. Indeed, skateboarders would bring rubbish, but they were more likely to be scapegoats for others, for anyone passing by may drop litter as well. The same thing is with vandalism. The same thing is with vandalism. Skateboarders would be improbable to skate on unsafety and easily broken places or to sabotage the ground they rely on, and they always prefer outside rather than inside places with the bare ground rather than marble. So, it is unacceptable to regard the damage as intentional without solid evidence.  Shop owners should take into consideration natural damage, due to rainwater or wind, and another man-made reason, due to long-time neglected maintenance, as well.

Besides, the current situation may not support an ideal recovery. Two-year-old decoration styles and “sabotaged” facilities might not captivate consumers and thus need renovation, while renovation needs budgets. And when it comes to subjective conditions, if the unpopularity came from fallacious business strategies at all, then how to make sure that this time superiors will not go down the same road? Therefore, it is unreasonable and blind to just shift the responsibility to skateboarders. In other words, look for your intrinsic factors rather than others’.

In conclusion, look before you leap. If shop owners accept the “recommendation” without thinking twice, they may inhibit not only skateboarders but also hundreds of bystanders at skateboarding shows including potential consumers.