newsobserver.com projects - David Lawrence - Comments

Re: E-mail panel ready to start work

j1c2kp — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:05:04 -0400

looks alot like a stacked deck

Re: Claims Dept: Perdue on Moore and Parton

disantor — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:52:36 -0500

Insane, I know. The Commission approved funding the theater -- 21.5 million dollars -- without having access to information that Moore had on the (questionable) feasibility of the project to generate enough revenue. It doesn't pass the "red face test" when Moore claims this was out of scope and they didn't need to consider the feasibility study -- just ability to pay! Duh - well, ability to pay -- doesn't that hinge upon... ummm... FEASIBILITY of the project?!! The dome pundits have missed the boat on this one.

Exactly

Anglico — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:37:16 -0500

Leave it to the Dome to miss the point of the whole debate. This isn't about the merits of the study or the criteria the LGC used. It's about full disclosure of information. The N&O's conclusion that the Perdue is "over-reaching" is absurd. The proper conclusion would have been: Moore is "under-delivering."

Re: Claims Dept: Perdue on Moore and Parton

bluescorpio — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:52:29 -0500

Hi, I'm a long-time Dome reader, but this is my first comment.

So, explain something to me here. How can commission members be expected to fairly "decide whether the project has a good chance of success", if they haven't seen the results of the feasibility study? Wasn't it Mr. Moore's responsibility as head of the commission to fully disclose everything he knew about this, so that the decision could be made after ALL facts were considered? Why didn't he?

Re: Claims Dept: Perdue on Moore and Parton

twoshadesofblue — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:38:02 -0500

So Moore's office has the feasibility study and doesn't share it? Disgraceful...