Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Sure. Show me the component that benefits the public.
I'm pretty sure thats all the Mayor has asked for. Show it.
Splitting the cost into thirds seems like a more than fair deal, but talks have broken down over that?
|
The larger the public benefit, the more the city should fund. No public benefit? city pays 0%. All public benefit? city pays 100%. This is clearly somewhere in between.
And the city offered the equivalent of 11%, so clearly the city sees some public benefit. It just doesn't seen enough to justify a 33% spending rate.
My point is that Nenshi should say so. Instead, he's saying the city has offered 33%, when it clearly has not. Its disingenuous