Comment 25728

By Sage (anonymous) | Posted June 26, 2008 at 16:46:53

Again, you miss the point. If you read Dreschel's column on Monday, he points out that Mancinelli had agreed to the $1M. It was the condition of size, which would trigger the penalty, he objected to. I believe the city wanted a footprint large enough to generate $600T in annual asssessment. Mancinelli proposed a footprint that would bring in $185T.
How silly for the city to say no. The money for the building didn't change, what changed was the speed of the payback: $185T Vs. $600T. With the lower number we would have had a restored Lister and money coming in. Now? Nothing! Fred was right on this one.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools