Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam
I sincerely doubt it’s either a horrible waste of money nor a waste of time. You’d be foolish to not think CPS Energy, a publicly owned company, wouldn’t do its due diligence when determining which route to take. That includes a cost benefit analysis. They did their homework, so to say the things you say just because you personally disagree with the way they went is unnecessary. I can promise you had they had to buy land and build from scratch, they’d have spent way more than $142 million.
|
There's also the public's perception of building new vs. rehabbing. Even if the two options theoretically were to come to the exact same cost, in the public's eye it would look better to rehab an old building than to build a new, attention-grabbing skyscraper. People (even a vocal minority) would say, "Why are you wasting the public's money building a shiny new building for yourselves and making our bills go up?" Then more people would hear that outcry and jump on the bandwagon, causing a headache for CPS. So by rehabbing an old building, they avoid that scenario altogether. It's politics, but politics is largely about perception.