Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse
They way I'm reading CSEC's position - I think they have concerns about these "infrastructure and climate costs" as being reasonable and needed in the first place.
I guess I'd have to see some additional details on what these climate and infrastructure costs are for exactly to properly form an opinion. Sounds like solar panels are desired - but what constitutes the infrastructure improvements? Sidewalk or road widening? Urban Realm improvements? It's all relative to what was specified in the July 2021 agreement @$608.5M. I presume they have a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and associated costing that adds up to that $608.5M as an exhibit to that agreement.
It would seem that these climate change and infrastructure costs never made it in to that WBS schedule. Bunk's comments provide some interesting context in that it might have been discussed as and left as a condition of occupancy, but not legally documented as such in the WBS and agreement. So it would seem CSEC has reviewed these costs and ultimately said - I'm not paying for this - it's not necessary. So let's see what these details are first before assigning blame?
|
I think you would find that there is not a lot “specified” and a lot left open to interpretation. But the $608.5M seems to be the costs as known at the time and even the CSEC release admits there was possibly more to come. Indeed, they acknowledge costs had gone up elsewhere.
I think CSEC likely can do what it wants as far as proceeding. No development agreement like this actually requires a company to continue with a money losing development. It’s not a matter of assigning blame, and, in fact, it’s all likely just negotiation. CSEC probably just wants the City to back off of some of its requirements.