View Single Post
02-07-2014, 11:41 AM
Checked out
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hiking
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,856
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
Obviously not. Normally when buildings are constructed major tenants have signed on.

Not really sure why this is a problem, other than the fact that all the buzzwords like "Katz," "city," and "development" are involved, which always seems to send people like yourself off the deep end.
You can't be serious.

Previously, during the Arena negotiations the city had REJECTED the revised requirement of Katz(one of many as you'll recall) that the city move into the new tower and be involved in supporting that build at least through occupancy.
City council, the representatives of the electorate, voted that requirement down.
Now a year later after an undisclosed bid process Katz tower ends up being the home of all those City bureaucrats when city council had previously said no. Somehow Katz beats out 16 other bids. With the electorate knowing none of those details (and likely never will)

This doesn't seem the least bit curious to you?

Or "the facts" of how the city will be "saving" 160M through the move into a more expensive brand new tower. Lets be clear here. The 160M tag is an undisclosed projection of savings. Likely involving Lorna Rosen, who had one time estimated that Edmonton Indy brought in an economic value equivalent to that of major F1 races in Europe. Yeah, that Lorna Rosen. If you believe any figure that comes out of her mouth I don't know why.

Replacement* is offline