|
for one, we can convince the MSMers that they're about to be scooped. BTDT. I believe you're right, the Kinsey Prohasco deal is the key. My guess is they hit bubba with a slap suit. The timing makes sense, considering the looming WFP vote. They probably hinted they might consider withdrawing if he shut down the site and kept his mouth shut. I've seen this exact tactic used in the recent past (long story).
I've been trying to drum up some help, but it's been tough. The unofficial SKB refugee blog went to crap right off the bat. The owner is trying hard to discourage anyone from pursuing the issue. Seems like people are more interest in playlists, video games, promoting their business, catfighting and getting laid than taking care of SKB business. It's sad. There are some people interested, and a few that are calling for 'ass-whoopins' -if we could just come up with a way to organize them. Check this space tomorrow.
Here's a little something to sleep on:
>> > From: thrwaway76@a... >> > Date: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:40 pm >> > Subject: Re: Bubba News >> > >> > "Brian Conley, on behalf of KPA (but maybe not, I also think the >> rest of the >> > gang is terrified of what BC might say next), is doing the same >> thing the >> > Bush spin-doctors are doing regarding Rove/Plame: they're trying to >> divert >> > attention away from the point by questioning the veracity of the >> messenger. >> > >> > Here's the point: KPA is saying "the City" changed everything. So, I >> assume >> > they're blaming the Ashe administration. I'm saying, it looks to me like >> > KCDC was supposed to – or is supposed to prepare a "comprehensive >> > Development Agreement" as outlined by the Council Resolution >> adopting the >> > KPA proposal, and Mamantov's letter, that contains language to >> legally bind >> > KPA to the private investment and anchor tenants. This language would >> > legally obligate them to turn in ALL invoices to KCDC. >> > >> > And, no, the money that people unconnected with KPA invested in the >> > redevelopment area cannot apply to KPA's proposed $8 million in tenant >> > improvements. Any KPA "team member" like David Dewhirst's investment >> in the >> > Watson's Building would count. (Jon Kinsey said in the 7/15 KNS >> story, "We >> > never said that was all ours. "Some of it was ours.") No, the >> proposed $8 >> > million has to come from KPA. And the invoices have to be turned in >> to KCDC. >> > >> > Jon Kinsey is saying things like, "I feel really good that we've >> delivered >> > on everything we said we would," Kinsey said. "We've been very >> consistent in >> > our proposal." And, "…I bet we're approaching that $22 million total >> now." >> > >> > Problem is there aren't any invoices in the KCDC public file that show >> > anything other than what's in the WMA report -- unless they've added >> some >> > since June. Even if they have added some since June, using Jon Kinsey's >> > words, "I bet" they won't come close to $22 million. >> > >> > The taxpayers just have to have something more solid than >> "feelings". If the >> > invoices are not in the KCDC file then they don't exist for the >> public. That >> > 's like Conley saying, "I suspect my brother will proceed with plans to >> > renovate those buildings" (Charter Federal and AmSouth). Something more >> > solid than "I suspect" is required when the public has forked out >> millions >> > of dollars on what was supposed to a public/private deal. >> > >> > So, the questions are: >> > >> > 1. Who, in the chain of authority didn't do their job or covered up >> > something? >> > >> > 2. Did the Ashe administration materially change the terms of the >> project >> > without informing the public, which is my take on what KPA is saying? >> > >> > 3. Did KCDC purposely avoid preparing the comprehensive Development >> > Agreement? And if so, why? At whose instructions? >> > >> > 4. Did Council's advisor/s fail to inform Council that the Phase I >> > Development Agreement materially changed what was proposed and >> adopted by >> > Council in concept, knowing that no other legal development >> agreement was >> > forthcoming? >> > >> > 5. Did Council's advisor/s fail to advise Council that the Phase I >> > Development Agreement did not contain language holding KPA to the >> private >> > investment and anchor tenants because Council's advisor/s thought the >> > "Comprehensive Development Agreement" was forthcoming?" >> --- End forwarded message --- >
|