Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P.
The "HRM didn't follow their own policy" line is arguable at best.
|
My impression is that this is a somewhat weak argument and that it might all be moot because the groups who are now going after the city participated in and were aware of the process that actually was undertaken. As you say, council voted multiple times on this and has since rescinded the old policy, which by the way did not
entitle these groups to the property. It is not nearly as sketchy as it is being portrayed.
Many of the other points about the HRM being biased or prejudiced seem difficult to prove.
Even if the judge does agree with the nonprofits, it does not seem obvious to me that the groups would be awarded the property. I am not sure what would happen. Would they be awarded negative damages because council's decision prevented them from gaining a big liability in the form of aging, unsuitable buildings?
Threaded Mode