Is Eli Broad REALLY "stepping down"?
The LATimes reports this morning that Eli Broad is "stepping down" from the Grand Avenue Project.
That implies---you know---stepping down. Right?
Take a look at this email we received this morning:
"The LAT article was a bit misleading and which resulted you getting it even more off-track. Eli is not going anywhere. Nelson just joined him..."
It's a good source, too. If the source were right, it would mean one of two things:
1) Eli is stepping down, and the usually reliable source is simply wrong.
2) Eli is not stepping down, he will remain as silent co-Chair. Eli and/or The Project just wanted it to appear that he is stepping down, and some Times editor-slash-Broad-flak, working at a paper which Eli Broad is threatening to buy, is gladly complying with that wish.
Who's got opinions? I've got mine---the source let a little kitten out of the bag, and now, we'll see more nuance out of poor Cara Mia DiMassa, caught between her flacking editor and the truth. But never mind me---I'm always wrong, as all you dum-dums keep reminding me. What's your opinion, you Level II CRA project managers?
My broader---pun intented---position is this: Whether Eli is truly away from the project, or in fact remains silent co-Chair of the GAP, it all wouldn't be so bad---just development business as usual---if this were a completely private project. We can understand a man or a woman wanting to be removed from the glare of public scrutiny.
But this is a public project, with civic land, jumpstarted by taxpayer subsidies, and it was Broad who had his hand out when it came to collect them.
We the public are giving them the lease for the site, and we're giving them breaks with our money, breaks that you and I don't get. The public has a right to perfect transparancy on this project. The public has a right to NO fake news reports on GAP.
Of course, the source could be wrong, or just out of step with the latest flackage from GAP. We're working on that angle, too.
But I doubt it. After three emails, the source isn't backing down.
Spin away, dum-dums.
That implies---you know---stepping down. Right?
Take a look at this email we received this morning:
"The LAT article was a bit misleading and which resulted you getting it even more off-track. Eli is not going anywhere. Nelson just joined him..."
It's a good source, too. If the source were right, it would mean one of two things:
1) Eli is stepping down, and the usually reliable source is simply wrong.
2) Eli is not stepping down, he will remain as silent co-Chair. Eli and/or The Project just wanted it to appear that he is stepping down, and some Times editor-slash-Broad-flak, working at a paper which Eli Broad is threatening to buy, is gladly complying with that wish.
Who's got opinions? I've got mine---the source let a little kitten out of the bag, and now, we'll see more nuance out of poor Cara Mia DiMassa, caught between her flacking editor and the truth. But never mind me---I'm always wrong, as all you dum-dums keep reminding me. What's your opinion, you Level II CRA project managers?
My broader---pun intented---position is this: Whether Eli is truly away from the project, or in fact remains silent co-Chair of the GAP, it all wouldn't be so bad---just development business as usual---if this were a completely private project. We can understand a man or a woman wanting to be removed from the glare of public scrutiny.
But this is a public project, with civic land, jumpstarted by taxpayer subsidies, and it was Broad who had his hand out when it came to collect them.
We the public are giving them the lease for the site, and we're giving them breaks with our money, breaks that you and I don't get. The public has a right to perfect transparancy on this project. The public has a right to NO fake news reports on GAP.
Of course, the source could be wrong, or just out of step with the latest flackage from GAP. We're working on that angle, too.
But I doubt it. After three emails, the source isn't backing down.
Spin away, dum-dums.
Posted by Joseph F. Mailander @ 3/06/2007 09:22:00 AM
3 Comments:
Can't we just build Eli a statue of himself and be done with it. People can line up from across the world to kiss the philathrapists feet --- and we don't have to wreck the area and overtax the cops.
I think its patently clear looking at the number of 'unopposed' council returnees,(LaBonge, Wesson, Parks, Smith, and almost Greuel) why Prop R needs to be taken down. there it is, stark reality of the campaign finance and lobbying situation.
the two term limit 'forces' lobbyists to curry favor all over again with someone new. that must be a good thing.
No, I'm sure that Eli wants a statute of Mayor Sam, Dave Dogg, Alvin Parra, and Nick Pacheco, counting their wins in politics.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home