After reading the article, I can't help but think that Sleiman will probably give in and leave. But doesn't the city still owe him that money? (4.7 mil).
We owe Sleiman $4.7 million just for the east parking lot, which the city hilariously sold to Sleiman, refused to close on even after Sleiman began using it, and is now trying to refund him for so they can build the above. This would be on top of anything else we'd have to pay him to buy back the physical Landing. And what we'd have to pay to then demolish said asset. And what we'd have to pay to buy out the existing leases. And what we'd have to pay to remove the Main Street Bridge ramp. And what we'd have to pay to repair and reconfigure the riverwalk and docks. And what we'd have to pay to execute on Curry's vision.
Plus legal fees.
For a f*cking lawn.
Off the tax rolls.
I hope Sleiman doesn't give up. If you read the articles that have come out in the last couple of weeks, the guy clearly wants to put all this nonsense to rest and get to work on the Landing. His lease long outlasts any single mayoral tenure, and in my opinion, legally, any perceived failures at the Landing can be reasonably chalked up to failures on the city's behalf to uphold its end of the contract in terms of access (parking and docks) and security (which has really hurt the Landing's perception).
So much public and private investment is going into adding residential, hotel, and student housing along Laura Street. And the city has talked for years about wanting downtown to be a vibrant 24/7 district. In what universe does it make sense then to anchor Laura with a dusk-to-dawn park, rather than maintain or improve upon the existing complex of retail, restaurants, and bars.
Even more strangely, it sounds like the two structures that Curry has in his sketch on the periphery would be largely residential, overlooking the park that he'd work with a private developer on. It's basically a worse, more pubicly-expensive version of the plan that Sleiman and the DIA already spent years hammering out.