Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
For those of you that think 30 years is too long....
The land claim is worth in excess of $1 Billion. If anything, NYRA may have sold their equity in that claim short by getting " only " 30 years. Being that they are better than 50% to win the claim they are forgoing over a half a billion dollars in value. Those of you that think they should have settled for less than 30 years should be careful next time you are in any kind of bargaining position.
Those of you that think NYRA should not get a franchise extension need to tell us which bidder should get the franchise and why. Otherwise your arguments hold no water. It is a CHOICE by the Governor. Please tell us why he chose the wrong candidate and why.
|
Andy, while I agree with you, I don't think the time period is relevant. The 30 year extension can be viewed as a shield and a sword. First, I think it could be too short vis a vis the claim to the land. Second, I think it could be too long, unless there is clear cut measures in place to hold NYRA accountable to certain standards. My question has always been -- what if the standards are not met? There must be not only checks and balances, and accountability in place, but possible repercussions. There has to be "bite" behind the bark, and you know I've been saying that for many, many years.
As far as the land, I don't understand why this is still subject to debate. Sure, you never know how a case might turn out, and I've learned that lesson well -- however, counsel for both sides, during discovery seemed to arrive at the same conclusion, that being, it was significantly more probable than possible that NYRA would end up winning the land dispute. I think more importantly, the creditors committee and their legal counsel arrived at that conclusion. While I am sure few even know who those firms and players are, they are far more qualified to voice an opinion on such matters.
Eric