Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2006 | In response to David Stroup’s letter, I don’t believe his analogy makes sense. If someone knowingly purchased a home with mold because of the reduced cost, then years later realized the expense of mold mitigation combined with the expense of refinancing to a conventional 30 year loan, should that person be able to get out of the deal?. Would the original owner and the lender find this fair? The employees did not create the problems, but we are being asked to solve them. If your employer offered a pension increase instead of a pay raise, then years later decided the increase was unaffordable, would you gladly return the benefit? The benefits are only illegal in the opinion of Mike Aguirre. There has been no court ruling that I am aware of ruling them illegal. Let’s try telling Petco Park bondholders that the city can only afford to pay back principle. I have a feeling it wouldn’t go over very well. And it shouldn’t.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.