Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

awdrgyjilz t1_je9gkfh wrote

Reply to comment by jakeburdett in Rouse project 2.0 indeed. by hiruy2000

Assuming you wrote this piece in good faith (which I'm not entirely convince of since true unbiased actors don't write and behave the way you do), here are a few tips if you want to be taken seriously.

  1. Understand your market. It's very clear you don't understand commercial real estate. It's a wildly volatile market and property owners give out financial incentives all the time. Yes, you can choose to sit empty until someone comes along willing to pay your price (as many owners do). But this is a central space in the center of the community. Sitting empty looks really bad. Really bad.
  2. Don't be a puppet. Despite what you claim, it's very obvious these documents and a narrative were fed to you with a specific purpose, and you're not questioning that at all.
  3. If you genuinely are a progressive, don't post wildly speculative pieces with no hard evidence of wrongdoing to a website run by hard right people who are prone to believing in conspiracy theories. I'm mean, unless it's your intention to be perceived the same way, that is.
5

jakeburdett t1_je9sj20 wrote

I can see how you have these takeaways if you’re only viewing this situation in a vacuum, and are not familiar with the past actions and other figures involved. If you’re not convinced by Parts 1 & 2 yet, i at least encourage you to read Part 3 & 4 when they come out, as they deal with other shady things done by Lakey outside of this one contract. And I did cite some sources in the piece that reference norms in commercial real estate and leases (such as annual 3% monthly rent increase to account for inflation, as the previous CA President’s contract included)

1

awdrgyjilz t1_jea246g wrote

It’s YOUR job to provide a compelling argument. You have not done that. It is not my job to be convinced by your flimsy evidence. I know you think you have a smoking gun. I can assure you that you do not.

  1. Rents move and down all the time, especially in the commercial market.

  2. Inflation riders are preferred but not universal.

There is simply no proof here that Lakey acted in bad faith.

The fact that you’re not open to objective feedback just proves you have underlying motives and aren’t really interested in discovering the truth.

Which is fine (especially since you posted it to a site that promotes conspiracy theories), but just know that your opinion will just keep being marginalized because everyone will continue to not take you seriously.

4

jakeburdett t1_jea2vhf wrote

That’s a fine takeaway to have, though many others do find the evidence presented in this blog to be quite damning, and perhaps the future parts will make you feel the same way

And I’m not sure how you could say I’m not open to feedback, when I’m reading your feedback, and engaging honestly with it

0

awdrgyjilz t1_jea3798 wrote

Yes the “evidence” is quite damning if you’re on the extreme right and already prone to believing in conspiracy theories.

Multiple people have already told you your evidence is flimsy and you continue to post the same things over and over again.

4

jakeburdett t1_jea3dr1 wrote

Giving corporations sweetheart deals to the tune of $1 million+ is quite conservative, actually. Holding corporate greed and corruption accountable is the heart of the modern progressive movement, in fact

−1

awdrgyjilz t1_jea43d3 wrote

And again, you have not proven that this was a sweetheart deal without providing comps. Please provide comps.

4