View Single Post
02-07-2014, 03:33 PM
Checked out
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hiking
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,856
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
Replacement - I could be wrong, but I believe the new city council voted on (in private...) proceeding with this proposal. It wasn't simply an administration decision.

If that's the case, I don't think there is an issue.

edit: yes, city council did vote:

"Councillors voted 10-3 to approve the office deal following a December closed-door meeting."
But as mentioned with the previous council having turned down the Katz tower proposal.

For good reason.

Again, this being a new council, with a new mayor, and with several new members, this was not going to be an evaluative decision. They rubber stamped this because really what else could they do? Start another council term just where the last one left off? Several council members, and our Mayor voted to expedite this. Rather than prolong this through endless further dithering.

With the Arena development proceeding I think its fair to say nobody wanted to risk that by saying no re the tower proposal at this time.

This would be a time pressured decision by a brand new council susceptible to making it due to the situation and impending arena groundbreaking.

Replacement* is offline