DoorKnob410 t1_je5dmoy wrote
That tenant sure is getting great use out of the "under-valued" "open space". I wish CA had held a harder line and that little pier was even more vacant and dead than it is right now! I also hope the new CA President works even harder to price CA property in a way that discourages its use. I'm sure everyone is glad Clyde's is gone and the building is dark.
Keep fighting the good fight, Jake! We're lucky to have you.
jakeburdett OP t1_je5epq4 wrote
This is a false dichotomy. The only choices aren’t to either have the space remain vacant, or to give away the farm. I’m sure there are many restaurants who’d kill to pay a fair rate for arguably the best outdoor dining space the County has to offer
DoorKnob410 t1_je5fmct wrote
There's only one restaurant tenant that could use that space. It's consistent with CA's mission to have vibrant outdoor space. This is a pure judgment call that you spent a LOT of text trying to turn into something malicious. Lakey Boyd is fortunate that you're her Woodward & Bernstein.
jakeburdett OP t1_je5kddt wrote
It’s also consistent with CA’s duties to get top value for their resources to not betray their fiduciary duty to CA residents. It’s not clear that that was done here
The post was facts, followed by a judgment/conclusion. You are welcome to disagree with my judgment/conclusion, which it sounds like you do
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments