I have always promised that I would, in this space, correct errors of fact I have posted. I mischaracterized the law regulating the Existing Debt Allotment as that impacts our tax liability for the bond issue before us May 12th. The details of how I came to my concept as posted are irrelevant at this time. The point is, I was flatly wrong, and admit it.
It appears likely that state EDA will continue, and this bond will qualify for EDA support at some yet undefined level. This is not to say I have been converted to a pro-bond position, and my incorrect read of the EDA legislation was not a core factor in my opposition to the bond proposal. An important factor in public debate is credibility of the debating parties. I will not intentionally mislead readers on any issue.