Quote:
Originally Posted by cabo35
However, until recently, no one from either side mentioned the controversy over where the bulk of contribution revenues were going was at the root of decision making. If in fact, apparently, the developer used his leverage to insure greater financial advantage for Villagers.
|
First, thanks for the kind words. It really is nice when someone has differing opinions but doesn't feel the need to bash the other one over the head. You've shown how to do it with grace.
Second, I think it was always clear that the issue with Relay for Life was about where the contributions were going. At least that's how I understood it. I just feel (and, from what I can tell, so do Whalen and F16) that the Relay should have been held on TV grounds regardless of the fact the money would go to ACS.
Where are opinions totally diverge is whether it is a greater financial advantage to Villagers. I think it is a greater financial advantage to the developer (not Moffitt, not Villagers). It's not like we will be getting free medical services -- we or our insurance companies will pay through the nose to be treated at Moffitt. The only true benefit is getting Moffitt onto TV grounds and, to my way of thinking, that is a distinct advantage for advertising for the developer but not much of one for Villagers given that Moffitt is going to be built in Leesburg.