SectionC3

Infrastructure and land acquisition are prohibitive downtown. Minimal land acquisition/infrastructure costs in OP. All signs point to OP. Skyway is staying up. News leak. CE didn’t say no negotiations or no deal. Now add in the Walton thing. Bills employee on this site has gone dark. All of that was anecdotal. But birdies chirp. Open air in OP. No dome. Too expensive.

Call you state representatives because that is where this is headed. Or maybe you can fund the difference between OP and downtown. But trust me when I say it’s going to OP.

It’s not going to be a dome. Open air in OP on the ECC South footprint is where this is headed.

I don’t think it’s stock, either. But the stadium is not going in at the Perry projects (which is the setting of the rendering). It’s going in OP. Book it.

Good for Nassib. That took courage. Which is more than sort of sad, because it shouldn’t take that type of bravery to live an honest, decent life. I can’t stand the Raiders, but I’m pulling for this guy. Also, FYI, there is at least one prominent Bill in the not-so-distant past who is gay. It was an open secret back in the day. We all rooted for him. So anyone who has a problem with Nassib … keep that in mind.

The truth is they cut the deal with the Governor and nobody else. My suspicions on this run far deeper than this post, but I wonder if the Skyway issue forced the Bills’ hand a bit and they leaked their plans to make sure a major component of Canadian access to a new stadium isn’t destroyed. The point about playing elsewhere for two years was intentional. Not sure the purpose, but I’m starting to wonder if the Bills leveraged Poloncarz a bit on the vax issue to tamp that down and keep him in line. I’m gonna guess eminent domain and the general … dopeiness of Byron Brown. They probably looked across the table from him and corporation counsel (smart guy, and a decent, kind person, but dour personality), looked at each other, and wondered why they were dealing with these guys. Byron in particular is a rinky dink player.

Good point on the water table. And good knowledge, too. What i was—very inartfully trying to get at—was that, as a neophyte in this area, I figured that if “they” could dig at the current stadium site, there might not be too much of an issue digging a few hundred yards west on the other side of Abbott.

This is an interesting discussion. How would (or would) geothermal assist in heating/cooling if a significant part of the new stadium is below grade? I’ll add that my guess is that the water table wouldn’t be too much of an issue if the new stadium is build either close to the west side of Abbott or on the SE corner of Abbott and Southwestern. The existing stadium is on a hill, and the west side of Abbott is similarly sort of high. Things start to slope a bit down as one gets closer to ECC academic buildings and the intersection of 20A/20/McKinley.

I thought about what you're getting at - southeast corner of Abbott and Southwestern. They'd probably have to get their hands on the parcel that holds the Prohibition Bar - a relatively small establishment that, as far as I can tell, never has any traffic. So that might work. No matter where the stadium goes, I suspect that ECC South is toast. Putting additional parking in there makes sense, if for no other reason than to wring every last dime out of the stadium and capture all of the parking dollars that now go to satellite lots. And I suspect the County will be happy to offer that land as a significant part of its contribution to the stadium effort, not only to reduce the cash outlay required but also to close the campus and consolidate all three ECC campuses downtown. If it's on that side of Abbott Road, then probably yes.

What about ECC South? I'm not being funny about this - you're the architect, so you know better than anyone. But I eyeballed it, and lots 3 and 4, together with the campus, look plenty big to me. Only have to buy maybe four or five parcels on the west side of Abbott to make it work if they want all land abutting Abbott from 20A to 20. I'll add that, politically, ECC South makes sense. It's an excuse for the county to consolidate the ECC campuses, they get to contribute to the stadium for what amounts to an in-kind contribution, and it allows the county/state to avoid massive infrastructure headaches and charges that would come with a downtown stadium. Would also explain the shift in the last week on the Skyway and the Pegulas' retreat from downtown hospitality businesses (716 and, apparently, Labatt House). *** EDIT: They may have to get their hands on "La Galleria" and the Texas hots place and O'Neill's, too. So be it. Minimal land acquisition costs, nevertheless.

219 90 skyway southwestern big tree tons of ways in and out. And, now that I typed this, I wonder if it means that the skyway stays. Hmmm.

Probably a lot of self-loathing in your life. Sad.

Me too. I heard demo at ECC might be expensive because of asbestos issues. But surely cheaper than buying off everyone in the ward who won’t seek if the plan would have been to build downtown. And, unless they put in a rail spur to try people there from Toronto, there are minimal infrastructure costs at ECC.

ECC lots. That’s where it’s going. Close Abbott on game day and use existing lots plus new lot space where existing stadium now sits for parking. Done.

A little bit. Politically, it's time to move. Gotta get this done while Cuomo is there. Don't know who the next governor will be. They have a working relationship with Cuomo, and he's incentivized to help now if he wants to run again in 2022. It's time to cut the deal. And I don't think they're going to build on the Highmark footprint. ECC make too much sense. Erie County wants to close the campus as it is. New stadium would be the perfect excuse. The point in yesterday's reports suggested that Toronto/Penn State are temporary options in the event a new lease agreement for Highmark can't. be reached. The reference to alternate arrangements had nothing to do with construction. So the guess here is that it's ECC, and that Highmark comes down only after the new stadium is occupied. The further guess here is that we can expect some sort of design that allows for the quick erection of a rink to allow the Sabres to play some games there during the winter (e.g., against Toronto to fill the place up).

So much for love the sinner hate the sin.

I think it’s going on the ECC South footprint.

And yet you can't show your cards and specify the (again, single and isolated) study to which you refer. Here's the bottom line. I didn't waste time on junk science, I didn't waste money on junk science, and I didn't support doing things like wantonly distributing this stuff to at-risk populations (such as aged veterans and veterans who may have been injured in the line of duty) and needlessly exposing them to harmful side effects. You did. Page 56 coalesces the allegations. The preceding pages explain the summary. Enjoy your read, Chef Jim Crow.

You keep on conflating danger with efficacy. The drug is useless with respect to COVID. Everyone knows it. Most people accept it. But not you. Instead, when your dear leader touted it as a silver bullet approach to the pandemic, you doubled down. And then doubled down again. And then doubled down some more. So today we’re in a spot where you cling to junk science and deflect to conceal the fact that you were dead wrong in this issue. The scientific community doesn’t support you, boss. You can name call and belittle, but you can’t win on the science. Maybe on fake science that you and your hoaxy pals like. But not on the facts. So have fun skin popping HCQ and trying to convince yourself that you and your crew of fake scientists didn’t blow the biggest medical issue in a generation.

Good thing you quoted from paragraph 250. Did you bother to read the preceding 249 paragraphs?

1. You’ve conceded that HCQ has side effects. That’s a good start. 2. Let’s see this single study on which you — but not the relevant scientific community, I note — rely. 3. At bottom you advocate for taking a drug with known adverse effects but, in the COVID context, no demonstrable benefit — save, allegedly, for this single, isolated study to which you refer. That is, although there literally is no benefit to the ingestion of the drug in this context, and still a concomitant threat of risk, you say it should be taken for this purpose. It’s a ludicrous position explained only by stubbornness, ignorance, fealty, or recalcitrance. Take your pick.

And today, we know that the drug doesn’t improve COVID-19 outcomes but still carries side effects. It’s a loser in this context. You can try to rewrite history all you want, but the fact is that you (and others, to be sure) were blinded by fealty and continued to advocate for the use of that drug in this context for political, not medical or scientific, reasons.

Start on page 56. Enjoy, Chef Jim Crow. Simp, huh? Gargle some more HCQ. While you’re at it, do recall that the issue wasn’t safety, it was efficacy. As in, HCQ is not and was not an effective treatment for COVID.

Maybe Doc is helping him write it. Should be good. Principal focus will be on including equal parts HCQ with fluoride in our water supply to combat such things as COVID, TDS, and cooties. Only the finest for Team Trump.

Start on page 56. They say it better than I ever could. Enjoy your evening, Chef Jim Crow. https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Sixth-District-of-the-AME-Church-v.-Brian-Kemp.pdf Who wanted people to die? Probably the fools who believe that squirting Lysol on our lungs to stop COVID was such a good plan that they deferred to fealty and refused to speak against it. Seriously. And he better secure the Colorado/Mexico border ASAFP.