Read on Twitter
If - if - the Jaguars were so inclined to show some limited good faith by accepting all the DIA recommendations, the revised report that came out this afternoon (which deleted certain parts of certain significant sections) would make much, much more sense as a template.
The revised version kept some of the strong language but eliminated the more provocative recommendations - like reducing or altering the $65 million "loan" - thus allowing the Jaguars to claim they swallowed the whole thing.
And in the end they're accepting watered down recommendations (alongside strong non-biding observations!) that won't really change much, but probably does enough optics-wise to short-circuit a lot of City Council chicanery Thursday.
Case in point: The original, on the left, recommends *reducing* the $92.8 million taxpayer contribution for infrastructure. The friendlier version on the right keeps the observation that the DIA can't justify the amount (for posterity's sake, I guess) but deletes the key part.
It's a super flimsy, almost insultingly clumsy ploy, but that's really where the Jaguars and the mayor's office live PR wise these days. So that's my theory.
I think this also explains to some degree why the DIA staff agreed to issue a revised report - do it and improve the deal at least a little, or don't and it stays the same. Not sure I agree with that logic, but it's something (keeping in mind they have the votes regardless).
