Like I said I’m not defending the union. But I’m generally suspicious of large public/private partnerships where the public is subsidizing private profits. Cost overuns generally run to 100% of the original estimate. Developers often times go back to the politicians many times to re-negotiate better deals after the fact (see the Padres and the Chargers).
Here Gaylord is saying that a 5% to 7.5% of the project killed the whole thing. Give me a break. There’s more to it and blaming the union is the red herring. The real estate market changed and Gaylord wanted Chula Vista to give more.
Citizens are not feeling so flush these days so there’s little stomach for more give-away of public assets. Think about it. Chula Vista residents are plain middle class. They’d be stupid to let their tax dollars support a luxury bayfront development so that outsiders can come in and flip.
