gargantua wrote: You really are disrespectful and condescending to people who happen to disagree with you. Yeah, I was for the project but against the TIF because it's "warm and fuzzy".
Jesus, grow a skin. I left plenty of room in my view for someone to take a principled position based on TIF, I explictly said it depends on financial issues I know little about. But it is also true that being for the project and against the TIF is a painless postition to take, regardless of its merits. It's like being for great schools and against property taxes. If you don't like such vulnerabilities being lampooned, avert your eyes.
gargantua wrote: If this is a good, sensible, profitable project, why is public participation necessary Huckleby?
The simple answer is that the developer wants a hedge against the risk, no profit is ever assured. It's a capital market. Evidently, the capital won't flow to the project without the city sharing some risk. City Wisemen (I suppose I should say "Wisers" to be PC) have determined that the total benefit to the city outweighs the city's share of the risk. The city gets some benefits that aren't directly tied to the profitability of the business, which is key to why a partnership makes more sense than a business going it alone. Both Soglin & Cieslewicz agree on this point.
gargantua wrote: There is little public benefit to this project. In this city of about 250,000 residents, I would bet that 240,000+ will never set foot in the place.
I don't want to reargue the whole case, but that's a narrow, one-sided statement