lukpac wrote:swimmingupstream wrote:No, read the article carefully. He said that the action Landmarks took Monday night would further jeopardize the project. The need to delay the project and defend it from this NIMBY attack will add to the cost to this project.
Why do they need to delay the project? As I indicated above, the Landmarks hearing doesn't push the schedule back at all. The council is already meeting *after* the Landmarks hearing.
Are you saying he is lying? It can delay lining up lenders and contractors and make those with intent to lease agreements get cold feet.
But, as you say this is just an academic exercise. The outcome is well known and it will not be designated a landmark.
Well...will the decision be further delayed at this meeting six weeks from now? If members of Landmarks are willing to blow off their own staff person's strong recommendation Monday night how do we know they won't change their mind and declare this shed a landmark? They have proven themselves already to be erratic.