At least I hope** this is verifiable news:
LAZ Chairman Alan B. Lazowski sent council a second revision Nov. 29, and Councilman Patrick Dowd said he thinks it could be the centerpiece of an agreement. The Post-Gazette agrees. (P-G, Edit Board)
Dowd emceed the celebrity roast of the initial lease offer from LAZ, which in retrospect was deservedly dead on arrival. But now it seems his objections to it were detail-oriented rather than religious in nature. Maybe he was simply negotiating aggressively -- while the rest of us got taken in by the "must be completed by October" deadline, which now seems rather quaint.
Irregardless. One step closer.
NOTED: Just in case it surfaces again, this theory sounds so broken I can't even begin to wrap my brain around anyone's supposed motivation to play their roles in it.
DISCUSSION QUESTION: If we're having a difficult time relinquishing our government-run parking fiefdom and/or justifying it politically to some parties -- shouldn't we be asking for more money on behalf of our city? It seems perverse to be shaving features off of the deal while whittling the payoff further downward ... perhaps instead we should be demanding more?
*-UPDATE: It is:
Let's just not allow the perfect to become the avada kedavra of the good. And I'm sorry if I ruined Deathly Hallows for anyone but the book was released in 2007 and your time has expired!
**-UPDATE B: Or not. Or kinda:
How about I just give up trying to understand.