Quote Originally Posted by Urbanized View Post
What I believe is inconsistent is that you previously indicated (without qualification) that you wouldn't have a problem if a project landed on City-owned land, but WOULD have a problem with a land swap. You since refined you position to say that you would only support it if the location were identified in a the ballot/public lobby process, which I read as a backpedal. Then, when it was pointed out that similar transactions have happened previously, you made scale the issue.

Honestly I think your complaint has more to do with thus particular project and the personalities and organizations associated with it.
Again, very unfair characterization given the long course of this discussion.

And I've emphatically stated my distrust with many issues around this project and long before now, and the reasons why.

If I cast a particularly suspicious eye towards this project it's for reasons I've clearly outlined, not some sort of personal bias or agenda. I have zero to gain one way or another. I'll just leave it at that.