Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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

−4

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.

9

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

−1