Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
I think it's a perfectly fine restriction under the spending clause. How is it any more intrusive than telling states their legal drinking age has to be 21, or that their maximum speed limit has to be 55 mph? States' recourse when they don't like a condition is not to take the money. On its face, it's not unconstitutional.
|
Hmmmm, since I'm a still budding wannabe great legal mind........ I'm gonna ride my hunch.
The High Stakes prize for the winner shall be a bag of those 'hand-crafted' Empanadas.
That's funny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert.hampton
I feel like World Trade Center is the new Buzz Geller. With all the false starts at 41st and Fox and WTC the new ‘anchor’, anyone thinks this is actually going to happen? Developers seem to be Indianapolis based with no track record of bringing anything to market (probably why they felt so comfortable partnering with WTC!)
|
I see there are hoops they still need to jump through successfully. I recall the original publicity when they purchased this land. IIRC their background has been more the the industrial side. They're not the biggest even though it's sort of a JV arrangement with a Mexican company. I'd have no idea where their construction funding will come from.
The fact that some 'adaptive reuse' is involved presumably makes that piece easier.