Some key quotes:

> In his statement, Scott said that “if these negotiations are successful, BGE will make a historic commitment of more than $100 million in capital improvements” over the next four years. > >Absent from the statement is the fact that BGE would otherwise be expected to pay $124 million in lease fees ($31 million x 4) between 2023 and 2027.

In an interview with Sheila Dixon: > She said she was concerned about the effect of the draft agreement on city efforts to bring internet access to underserved Black neighborhoods. “I didn’t see any commitment to where that would continue,” she said.

>Indeed, the agreement would allow BGE to use funds to extend capacity to places like Kevin Plank’s upscale Port Covington (recently rebranded as “Baltimore Peninsula”) , while avoiding expenditures in East and West Baltimore.

>Dixon said it was also troubling that the agreement would excuse the company from MBE/WBE requirements.

Zeke Cohen: > “I’m also concerned that we have the ability to provide municipal WiFi, but this pretty much forecloses our opportunity to provide it.”

When I read the complaints and rebuttals from the council members, I think:

why doesn't the city council/city draft a counter proposal. All of their complaints can be fixed and addressed via contract managemen

And then I remember it's Baltimore city, and the council members are clowns who put performative reelection antics over anything else.

as long as constituencies respond to such things, we're boned.

> “if these negotiations are successful, BGE will make a historic commitment of more than $100 million in capital improvements”

ok, but are they actually going to do it, or are they going to skip out with no consequence, like verizon did?

Probably skip out with no consequences. It’s already them paying less than they’re supposed to.