my first thought is "whelp, cant argue with that"

my second thought is "people will find a way to argue with that"

the thing with ALL these iconic landmarks is that the internal infrastructure is a fucking mess, so any bid is taking into account the 9 figures they're gonna have to spend un-fucking it

just because you cant totally eliminate a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve things

I mean it doesn’t make sense as a product. You need wifi in the subway because you don’t have 4/5G. You don’t need it on a bus.

I respect it as an accessibility thing for the small number of people who don’t have a data plan, but if that’s your whole target market then fund it as a social service and not a public transport feature that will be evaluated on user volume

Not excusing anything the developer did. The presence of alternatives doesn’t make this situation less stupid.

Seems like it’s a good look for the lessor but I can’t quite understand what benefit there is to the tenant. A 99 year term looks acts and smells like ownership except in this system you can still somehow force the “owner” to do weird shit like build a church for your friends. It just seems super weird to me and I’ve never seen it outside the city.

>The lease agreement said that if the landlord of the property were to demolish it, it would need to include space for the synagogue in any new project that is built in its place, according to the suit.  

Does anywhere else do this whole “99 year lease in lieu of actual ownership” thing? It seems like a vehicle for absolute nonsense like this