Editor seems to think tenants are leaving building because it is unattractive to them. Pam Zekman, he ain't. Wexford Pres. does not return calls. What does that tell you?
http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=2189&TM=34410.91
Did we discuss this one already? I was just on their site today.
I think the deal is blown - hopefully they at least kiss us before coming in with the new plan. I think that has already been aired but - you know - Plausible Deniability wasn't just for the Kennedys.
Sorry I checked out guys, I caught some rugged bug. Details omitted.
When I wrote the editor about his implication that tenants were leaving the Arcade because they were asked to, not because it was unattractive, he ended our exchange by telling me to learn how to read!
Gee, do you think he might be pro-TIF?
[And, no, I did not tell him to learn how to write.]
That was a good paper when Finnegan ran it.
The articles that were in the Landmark were about the budget meeting from Jan. 2006 in which $35,000 was budgeted "to help implement recommendations of an as-yet-unfinished TOD, which may include investigating the possibility of creating a TIF district" and an article from Feb. 2006 about hiring Kane, McKenna.
The only other article that was in the Landmark until Sept. 2006 was all about the public meeting that was to have been scheduled in June.
http://www.rblandmark.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=1478&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&S=1
The whole article was about this meeting, but the meeting never took place. There were no further articles in the Landmark until the one about opposition forming against the TIF. Was there ever a public meeting scheduled in June? I couldn't find evidence of one.
You must log in to post.