Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
No, I'm just correct.
If/when some other redevelopment option comes up the city should again include the cost of all the externalities in any analysis. Because just like with CS&E's proposal they'll be part of the actual cost. It's not disingenuous at all.
|
You're just correct?
Neat ability to just mark yourself as "right" in discussions.
I completely disagree, but won't call myself correct. It's not practical or logical for a city to leave that land as is for perpetuity, so the comparison of what this plan costs compared to what another plan costs is the number that matters.
I'd agree 100% if it was the development of Fish Creek Park into a sports stadium and the other option was to leave it as an amazing wildlife filled park.