Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

@Alex B: Thanks -- that shows the estimates are still the 2010 numbers. I agree that it's a surprising choice to highlight the $497M number -- although it appears that it is Alexandria, rather than the Examiner, that was first too do that. With more than half of the cost as interest, they better get that money borrowed while rates are still low.

I can't find the $240M number in the Feb. 2010 study, although it falls within the cost ranges for the D option ranges there. It's not the midpoint of anything, either, so there's obviously some analysis that went into it.

by Arl Fan on May 3, 2012 10:59 am • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam