TheSP wrote:I don't know anything about the renovations so I'm in no position to offer an opinion. On the other hand I find it extremely frustrating that a 26 year old building is no longer acceptable. It is baffling to me that taxpayers who're in most cases living in homes as old or older are asked to continually foot the bill new buildings simply because other cities have them. There should be a clause in their contracts, 30 years and don't you even ask before. I'm not against public money for facilities but I do believe it gets unreasonable when the building are no longer acceptable after such short time periods.
We're rubes. Until enough cities fight back... why won't billionaires try to get hundreds of millions of dollars just sitting there for them?
It's why I have affinity for Seattle... and mixed feelings about OKC.
