Yes, but if they really owe the $8 million
minus the costs of repairs, then it would seem that the logical step is to repair the hell out of the building. The city is already on the hook for the money, so they're going to have to pay it regardless of what they do with the building that they now own. If the settlement means that they can subtract whatever amount of money the spend toward repairs, then why not do that?
For example, they absolutely have to spend $8 million. If they spend $6 million on repairs, then they only have to pay $2 million in damages to the former owners. Then, since $6 million in repairs would probably do a decent job of bringing the building into relatively good condition, the city can turn around and sell the building for a reasonable price. Hell, if they were smart, they'd give it away to the first corporation that is willing to move a few thousand jobs into the city...
Or maybe the judgement is only for repairs the city had made up to that point. I don't know. I'm just saying...