View Single Post
Old
02-07-2014, 04:23 PM
  #839
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krut View Post
There's a difference between having blind faith and assessing the factors involved in this and coming to a conclusion.

We have a new mayor (who hasn't been one to give Katz a blank cheque in the past), and an entire new slate of council members that weren't around to vote on the arena deal or work with Katz in any capacity. I have difficulty believing that the new mayor and new councillors are following through on some backroom agreement with Katz when they have only been in office since November.

As mentioned in the post above, this was voted on, and it passed overwhelmingly. Michael Oshry (one of the rookies) voted against only because he felt that the City should build their own building, but reiterated that the Katz proposal was by far the best of the bunch.

Like I said earlier, this has all the buzzwords that are red meat for the anti-downtown development crusaders like you and Beerfish. You combine "Katz," "city," "arena district," and "development" in any article any chance of reasonable discussion gets tossed out the window.
Well you've contributed to the unreasonable discussion by inferring theres no way at all anybody should be concerned.

plus your responses in the thread have been dismissive and hardly leading to reasonable discourse. You can look back at them and I'm sure you'll admit it.

What Chris mentioned involves the Administration approving the Katz tender above all other bids and SELECTING the Katz bid.

The only involvement current council had in this was voting yes/no to go ahead. The only information they had was that which was provided by administration who again were the ones that selected the bid. The sense I got was rubber stamping it.

A new council was put in the unenviable position of either voting yes, or risking that this saga gets further delayed or complicated. Its my opinion (perhaps not accurate) that council voted yes to go ahead with this bid at this point to avoid delay in the whole arena venture and to avoid a new council having to be updated endlessly on years of information in this regard. In the act of expediency, and just moving forward, they voted yes. Which some council members have pretty much said. I'm almost thankful they did so that a new council doesn't get dragged whole into the quagmire that this arena development has been. Last thing I want is a second term of council mired in this mess.

So I have a somewhat balanced view. Glad it went through in away, but suspicious of the reported details nonetheless.

hope this is clear.

Replacement is offline