|
Post by Clipper on Jul 8, 2011 13:42:31 GMT -5
www.uticaod.com/latestnews/x1629185748/Downtown-gold-dome-bank-building-for-saleI am confused though by the article. In one paragraph they say that M&T wants to divest themselves of ownership of the building, and then a little farther down in the article, Hathaway said the bank’s preference is actually to lease the vacant office space and retain ownership of the building. Which is it? Do they want to sell, or do they want to retain ownership. Am I the only one confused by this? Am I reading something wrong? I hope that the building continues to be actively occupied and maintained. To lose THAT building and it's beautiful contribution to the Utica Skyline would sincerely be the last straw in nailing the coffin closed on downtown as we older people know or remember it.
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jul 8, 2011 20:38:31 GMT -5
Clipper,
My reading of the article (and I object to news writing which is subject to interpretation) is that M&T is leaving their options open. Either sell & lease back the part they need or retain ownership and lease the now vacant spaces. Given the sorry demand for office space in downtown, my comment on either option would be, "Good luck."
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 8, 2011 20:57:34 GMT -5
Thanks Clarence. Reading it again, with your explanation in mind, it is more clear.
It is not the first time I have been confused by the wording or manner in which an OD article was written. Many times the writing is as clear as mud.
|
|