[Drofmab]

Sorry, but I think everyone is being waaaaaaaay less skeptical than necessary, given the track record here.

The City basically said that Fortress has to pinkie-promise to the engineers (hired by Fortress' contractor) that they'll start construction April. Really? C'mon.

The specific wording, according to the LP is that Fortress needs “to advise their engineer that it intends to resume construction in April” [my emphasis]

‘advise’ and ‘intends’ are weasel words - they hold very little legal weight.

No concrete plan needed (pun intended).
Intentions & reality are often miles apart... as demonstrated by this project over the past 7 years (every year I advise my wife that I intend to go to the gym more, and drink less beer... hassn't happened yet).

Guess what Fortress gets for "advising" their engineers (curiously, not the City) before March 30th that they intend to start construction in April? A permit extension! For 180days! during which they will... do nothing. as usual.


AND - as noted, filling in the hole isn't a little project. So, even if it gets to that, what are the chances that Fortress will be able to do it in under 3-4years (if ever)?

Fortress is ready for a legal fight (“At this time we are not in a position to make any further comments regarding what we consider has now become a legal matter” (Fortress to LP by email today)), good thing the City's had at least 5 years to get their legal position shored up & ready to battle... everyone's known it would eventually end up in the courtroom. All of the clear communication & decisive action the City's taken over the past several years will assist in their court case.
[FTR: nearly everything in this paragraph is sarcasm. Solid bet the City's lawyers have barely been involved/are nowhere near ready for a court battle; and the City's wishy-washy complacency in this gong show will only benefit Fortress when this ends up in court]