Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Magnanimous
They should take the land claim to court so a judge can laugh in their face. How hilarious is it that NYRA thinks they own the land. If they really own the land, why not just take out a loan against the property and pay off their bankruptcy claims and pay back the taxpayer. Oh, they can't borrow against the land, BECAUSE THEY DON'T OWN IT!!!
What is next, NYRA going to tell us they own all the horses kept at the track because the horses are on "their" property and everyone knows that if you leave your property on someone elses land it becomes yours. LOL
|
With your every post you display an utter and complete lack of knowledge of every situation. The land claim has absolutely nothing to do with who paid taxes and anyone who makes this claim doesn't know what they are talking about. The land claim is all about the wording of the 1987 Franchise extension and also related to the lack of this wording in the 1997 extension. The question revolves around the legality of the original wording and whether or not the judge will throw that clause out in court. It is generally accepted that the judge who will rule on the case favors NYRA's side of the argument which is specifically why those in Government do not want to see this issue resolved in court and are willing to make a fair compromise with NYRA to ensure that this doesn't happen.
While I tremendously enjoy your posts, even the ones that echo other threads that you are too arrogant to bother to read, you would do yourself a great service if you attempted to understand these situations before opening your mouth....or banging your keyboard.