I'm looking forward to the meeting this Friday.
I have a few questions about millionaire for-profit pro sports owners entering into public/private partnerships (profit sharing, etc) with the council, even exempting the Storm agreement from I-91.
It is interesting, and a little disturbing, the difference in approach, attitude, and standards applied in the Storm agreement effort verses the Sonics agreement that is pending your approval.
I am wondering if the Storm lease would have met the 4 tests Mr. Conlin has recently invented.
Had Mr. Conlin actually voted on the Storm lease (he was excused) would he have voted no?
Based on his criteria, I guess he would have voted "no". How could he possibly vote otherwise?
I know that the other members of the current council all voted for the Storm lease, and I don't see how they could have had they used Mr. Conlin's special test.
I am sure all of you would not want a double standard applied to city agreements with pro sport franchises. Right?
I suppose it might be too much to ask that you exempt the ArenaCo agreement from I-91 as you did with Force10. But I am asking you to not invent criteria that you did not, and would not, apply to the Storm owners, the millionaire for-profit pro sports franchise owners.
I'm a Democrat, so, I naturally detest hypocrisy. Please attempt to avoid it in this case.
Storm Lease Fiscal note, Form revised February 6, 2008
See you Friday,
Sent from my iPhone
Visit me here: