Quote:
Originally Posted by CB1
|
Strange article--apples to oranges comparisons between deals in the aughts to deals today; primarily sourced by a former city manager that was not involved with the deal when negotiated and is not involved today; vague insinuations of impropriety for Charles Huellmantel like "he has his fingers on everything" with no specifics; no attempt to independently value the public amenities in the deal, but rather just hand-waving them away to be able to argue that the land was sold for "$50,000.00;" over-promising with claims like that there were bids north of $14m, while only later in the article revealing that the bidder was clearly unqualified, and failing to articulate whether those bids would also have sought tax breaks; pimping a "secret audit," a draft of which was apparently provided to the Republic, but then not including any portions of the audit in the article, apparently because the City wouldn't confirm the authenticity of the document, and/or because the audit concluded that there was no evidence of impropriety, etc.
I'm all for scrutinizing deals like this, but this article reads like a justification of a foregone conclusion.