Dunedin-based National Party MP Michael Woodhouse has a point in the tweet he sent yesterday morning.
The matter is, of course, not that simple. Detail can matter. There can even be ''devil in the detail''.
It is indeed a shame someone wanted to spend $100 million - and given construction costs it could well have been more - and that it now appears the project is not going to happen.
Attempts between the Dunedin City Council and hotel developer Jing Song to find a way for a 27-storey waterfront hotel to proceed seem over, amid acrimony and argument.
Ms Song this week confirmed she had torn up a memorandum of understanding with the council which had aimed to find ways to progress the project.
Ms Song blames the council for its failures, and Mayor Dave Cull says she used a deadline ''pretext'' to escape the agreement.
Determining blame for all this is difficult, especially because it is hard to know what has been happening behind closed doors.
But the result is the same - no big new investment in Dunedin and another hit to Dunedin's reputation when it comes to encouraging business.
While that might be unfair, the perception is out there across New Zealand. And perception has a horrible way of becoming reality.
Three years and apparently more than $1 million later, the project has gone nowhere. Issues arose right from the start.
The hotel plan came as a surprise and was immediately enmeshed in the resource consent process.
This, to a considerable extent, tied the council's hand. How much better it would have been if, before being lodged, the plan had been explored with relevant council officers rather than what appeared to be a take-it-or-leave-it approach?
How much better if Betterways Advisory Ltd had sought advice on what the district plan allowed and what process might be best to avoid the degree of opposition and help smooth the way?
On the other hand, one wonders if the council could have stepped in earlier off its own bat and provided advice.
Could it have been proactive from the start?
Councils almost everywhere have reputations as being notoriously bureaucratic, inflexible and slow moving, although sometimes for good reasons.
Despite Ms Song's claims, the council over the past few months will have been endeavouring to do all it could to advance the project.
It and most of Dunedin wanted to say ''yes''.
But was it just becoming too difficult?
Were the traffic problems on the proposed sites too intractable?
Were its consultants too tardy?
Fundamentally, were the requirements of the District Plan and the problems with the site just too limiting?
As well, opposition was widespread.
If the council and Betterways had sorted a way forward, the chances are the matter would have been appealed and ended up in the Environment Court, although the council and the backers would have been on the same side.
Opposition came from many concerned about what they saw would be a hideous blot on the cityscape.
Others like tall modern towers, particularly if the original design was modified.
There are also ideological undertones, with an active core not buying into the capitalist search for growth and for bigger meaning better.
Diametrically opposed are those who seek development in Dunedin, in whatever shape that might take.
Of course, many also hold various shades of opinion in between.
There is always, too, a resistance to change and a fear of the different and the new.
Maybe something can still be salvaged and an alternative site found, although given the disagreements and the hurdles needing to be cleared that seems unlikely.
The bottom line is someone was looking to spend more than $100 million in the city and it appears that is not going to happen now.
A large opportunity has been lost.
