Queen St is at a crossroads. Either we move forward to re-establish Queen St as the heart of the city, a city centre fit for purpose now and into the coming decades, or we decide it's all too hard and give up.
The landlords of Queen St and their fellow travellers seem to want the latter. Actually, it's hard to know what they really want, because despite their considerable resources they have not produced any kind of alternative plan.
The wonderful little Queen St bar-restaurant Tanuki's Cave, near the town hall, spent the weekend on social media complaining that customers were no longer able to park right outside the door.
Really? No one expects to do that. There are large carparks, underground and above ground, right behind that restaurant.
The litigants don't like the plastic sticks and white concrete blocks. But no one does.
It's not even relevant now, because there's a new plan. The sticks and blocks will be removed and a higher-quality urban design will be established. As a trial, which should mean it gets better as it unfolds. Work is due to start in just a few weeks.
The litigants want to injunct this work, so it cannot start. If successful, that will ensure the sticks and blocks they object to remain in place for longer.
They want a judicial review, which could see the street returned to how it was a few years ago, with more vehicle lanes and more car parks. That's what Tanuki's wants.
But Queen St wasn't thriving then, as the litigants want us to believe. It was heavily polluted, throttled by traffic, with scooters a danger to pedestrians, cars also, and the shops facing intense competition from elsewhere. It was already dying.
Putting the vehicle lanes back will only encourage drivers to use Queen St as a through-street. Creating more pollution, more danger for pedestrians and – surely the clincher for every driver – more congestion.
The big goal is to attract more people into Queen St as a destination. Giving more space to cars is the single worst way to do it.
The best way is to make the pedestrian experience great, because pedestrians, especially when they tarry, are shoppers. That means keeping the shops alive. Empty shops breed more empty shops and more rough sleepers, and everything heads into a depressing downward spiral.
If the landlords and the business association were doing their jobs properly, their top priority would be to keep the shops full, lively and appealing.
But they are not doing this. Their failure suggests they are less interested in the long-term health of the street than they are in other goals. Keeping rents high, perhaps? Destroying the credibility of the council, perhaps.
Queen St is now blessed with a large public square at each end, both learning how to become full of life. The challenge for the street is to become part of that. And with goodwill and public spirit it's absolutely possible.
Why don't those landlords do their bit to help? Do they really want to cast Queen St back into the past?
Instead of throwing money at lawyers, why don't they produce a great plan of their own? If they did that, this whole dispute would be over tomorrow, wouldn't it?