Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
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.
|
The other problem with the parking ownership issue is even if you can show that the city has transferred parking rights back to the tenant, it was obviously for no cost, as no one has any money down there, so you are argueing that something that was being passed around for free is now worth 100 million.