I read through it a couple of times.
When you parse through this story you can glean the following.
The stadium and surrounding development comprise 298 acres.
A strip of 60 acres along the northern border of the development is the area in question with regard to an insurance lawsuit. Not the stadium area. An area that will be used for parking.
The other portion of the 298 acre development has had a cleanup operation going since 2007 for arsenic, with soil removed. This was known before the purchase of the land, but the 60 acres in question was found to contain higher levels of arsenic (and lead) AFTER Kroenke bought the land in 2014. This necessitated a further cleanup there.
Per the lawsuit filed, who should pay and how much for the additional cleanup cost is under dispute, with plaintiffs claiming Chubb insurance is dragging their feet.
Near the end of the story is this paragraph:
"Cleaning up the 60 acres
cost more than $17 million, according to the lawsuit, though it didn’t provide specifics. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that Chubb should
reimburse them for up to $5 million of the cleanup cost plus interest, attorney’s fees and unspecified damages."
The use of the word cost (past tense - not "is costing" or "will cost" - and the use of the word "reimburse" is what lead me to believe that the cleanup has already been done. But again, the reporter does not explicitly state that the site has been cleaned up or quote anyone to that effect.
I see no indication in this story that players who play football in the new stadium are expected to experience any negative effects from an area on the northern border of the development that has been cleaned up.
Do you have a different understanding? Please explain if you do.
Fox news never came into it, as far as I know. What's that comment about?
Ramily!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2020 06:31AM by Saguaro.
