Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
Oh for **** sakes Resolute, come on.
You ask for confirmation but you and the boosters on this site continue to rely on "development" "prestige"
|
Not sure when I personally relied on the "prestige" argument, but no biggie. As far as "development" goes, I'm not going to go dino7c about it, but at the same time, the land has been an underutilized eyesore for over half a century now. If this proposal kickstarts cleanup and development of the area, then that is a win for the city.
But my point in response to HotHotHeat (and to others on this front) is to point out that people in opposition are relying on assumptions to spin the costs to the city in the worst possible light. We all know the Flames would love to have the city front those costs - there are some interesting and potentially good reasons for that in addition to the purely selfish ones - but it is disingenuous to just assume that will be the case when King did state outright that conventional funding is an option. So stop pretending there is only one direction that particular aspect of the funding can go.