Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
It certainly would be, but there are still 'ifs' involved there. GWI could have something that they interpret to say x when in reality it says y. Heck, GWI could have a document they know says y and are saying it says x as a means to gain more backing. Both sides are playing the game here, both have their own agendas, and neither seem to be overly concerned with fighting completely fair.
|
Oh sure, there are more "if's" even then that. Even if the GWI institute has a document that shows parking right belong to the city it only means that they belonged to the city on X date, it's entirely possible that there are subsequent documents that show reassignments of the rights back to the tenent at a later date. Of course then the onus is on the CoG to both provide those documents and demonstrate under what circumstances those rights transferred back (and that's another can of worms).
I'm curious about this rumored new bond offering (for 50M) if it is going to be backed in the same manner as the 116M bond proposal (with parking revenue) are they only going to be transferring over the rights to less then half the parking spots? If not does that not pretty blatently demonstrate that they were defacto (if or if not legally) trying to provide a subsidy? I very much doubt that somehow the parking spots lost 57% of their revenue producing value in such a short time.