Quote:
Originally Posted by N-E-B
The more that comes out the more I think it really just was poor timing. Which is okay. I understand it. But quit trying to pin the blame on the other side.
I’d have a lot more respect if both sides would have just come together, released a joint statement saying the project wasn’t financially viable at this time, and that the project would be re-evaluated in the future.
Instead we got a bunch of egotistical man-children slinging mud trying to sewer the other side and win the public’s favour.
|
I guess what I'm seeing from the city (and this is more so administration than council) is they're trying to lay out the facts and be as open as they can about it. The mayor, certain councilors, and CSEC have applied some spin to it. I think Mayor Gondek was trying to be relatively factual in stating what CSEC saw as unreconcilable issues, but did so in a way to paint CSEC into a corner.
I think the city has made their case that they were trying to make CSEC as aware as possible of the costs of certain things. Most of the public is naive as to how any construction project works, so it seems like the city is changing the requirements, when in reality that's just how building anything works. As the design gets more refined the scope or costs change along the way. It was like that when I built my house, or when you move from a conceptual design to a specific design in something like software development.
Frankly, the slew of opinion pieces from the Herald and Sun trying to blame this on the city is appalling to me. I'd really like CSEC to just be honest about the fact that the costs of the building itself are giving CSEC sticker shock and they don't want to maintain the current agreement, but, in my opinion, that would make them look weak.