Comments on: City of Austin v. Harry Whittington: the saga of a parking garage

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:24:11 +0000

So now what? Does Whittington OWN the garage free and clear? Does he get to pocket all the revenue from parking fees? The city is still paying off the construction bonds… right? What about the chiller station? He owns that too, right? He could dismantle it or demolish everything. Possession IS 90% of the law, you know… Will he contract out to Austin Energy to run the system? Shut it down? How is he going to charge the facilities which receive chilled water from it? Contract that out to AE as well? Is there still market demand for the ground level retail space at that site?

By: Jude Galligan

Jude Galligan — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:02:07 +0000

The City didn’t want to enter into any lease agreements in the middle of litigation with such an uncertain outcome and face further liability.

By: heyzeus

heyzeus — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:56:33 +0000

So why is the retail space empty?

By: [Part two] City of Austin v. Harry Whittington: the saga of a parking garage « Downtown Austin

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:05:09 +0000

[...] Part one begins here. [...]

By: jude galligan

jude galligan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:32:28 +0000

I’ll post the remainder of the story in a day or so. The amount of detail is cumbersome. To the letter of the law, so far as I can tell, Whittington should win this. If the City genuinely wants to begin to revitalize the downtown east of Congress, a good place to start is to settle this case and get some retailers in there asap.

By: mdahmus

mdahmus — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:14:42 +0000

Whittington should win this one – and the city council (except Wynn) should be ashamed they haven’t stopped this one a long time ago. He’s clearly in the right.