Well, I'm pleased to announce, that after 3 months, there is finally an answer.
This:
Instead of the e-mails, other documents were sent.
Basically, the majority of this information can be gleaned from the Pinegrove Financial Evaluation from 2006, and the 2009 Budget Recreation Center Analysis.
Does anyone realize what has never been shown at all? Ever?
A "feasibility study" for King$ Pork.
That King$ Pork building is well past it's prime, and in need of repairs. I believe parts of the building are at least 40 years old, with additions being in the 20-30 year old range. I'm not entirely sure on that, but of course I will check on that and correct myself at a later time if I am mistaken.
Tenants are emptying out of that King$ Pork building like it was on fire. You have to ask yourself "why"? Is the triple net lease too much? Are the CAM rates unreasonable? Does it smell like poopy in there? There has to be a reason why tenants are vacating. Of course, it's not too expensive for the taxpayers to lease space there.....MCC is in there already.....and if the Senior Center moved in that would have been a sweet deal. For the landlords of course.
Government is supposed to protect the taxpayer, not use them to pay back political favors.
Where were the feasibility studies for the King$ Pork lease?!?!
If Pinegrove, as a "temporary solution" had to have one, why didn't King$ Pork need one for a "temporary solution"?
