Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM
Why is the cbc trying to torpedo this development. Like really don't they have some human rights war path to be on?
|
Some would say that financial loss is a greater loss than whatever emotional coddling the SJW's are fighting for, ergo deserving of coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM
^I can't think of anything overtly obvious except their constant need to stir the pot
|
Really? Have you read their articles or the many about Fortress and its various histories?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper
Sorry, I don't find anything criminal about Fortress' dealings. Their tactics are not much different from any other real estate investment scheme particularly risky syndicated mortgages which is not exclusive to them. The scam artists that founded Fortress are certainly a cause for concern for investers however, their previous transgressions through an entirely different business venture are pretty much irrelevant. I don't know why it continues to be a the forefront of the discussion. Fortress, for all intents and purposes, is well established with partnerships that have delivered 1000s of units. These guys previous criminal actions are not something to lean on if this project fails to be delivered.
|
1. Correct, nothing appears criminal. However, unless I'm wrong (and I could be) the use of syndicated mortgages, while not exclusive to fortress, is not
that common. Consider the other major projects going up... TNS has its own money, strategic partnerships and billionaire backings. Artis has its own money, and raises money publically if needed.
2. It doesn't need to be criminal to be highly questionable. You mention the "founders" of Fortress as if they're not the current active leaders of the company; they are. If this fails, their previous actions are ABSOLUTELY something to lean on. If I'm buying a car and Mercedes seems to have frequent brake problems.... not all, the odd model... Then I'm not buying a Mercedes and it's absolutely not my problem and entirely theirs. If I'm VW and I claim to be clean diesel and it turns out I'm not, I can be prepared for future buyer caution, even if VW starts manufacturing boats.
Fortress has in the past been financially shielded when a project went south.
3. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely want this project to go ahead, and I can guarantee you that the major players in real estate in Winnipeg do too... it's only a good marker for our market and brings people downtown! My only gripe sometimes is the ignorance to facts sometimes shown by some fans of this project. I too am a fan, but I won't deny the past.
4. For all its past "bad apples", Fortess has 100 good ones. They are capable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM
I know. But why jeopardize the investments of all those who have already purchased units to go to war with the development firm. Don't they see how dangerous their game is. Giving the project bad press this far into the game only puts the people that they claim to be "protecting" at risk. If you ask me it's irresponsible even for them.
|
1. You make a good point. Many don't understand the risk developers take on.
2. You forget a bigger point. In syndicated mortgages, investors are sometimes less protected, and certainly more ignorant to the goings on in the project than the developer. Ignorance costs money, and while it IS the investors sole responsibility, I don't fault CBC for alleviating some potential ignorance.
3. It's more important for people, especially investors, to be informed than for us to have another tower downtown.
4. Ironically, the CBC is a very biased and dopey purveyor of "information" often prone to being a political lapdog.
Prev
Linear Mode
