Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
That would mean the university would be calling the shots concerning occupancy if the lease was canceled. On the other hand, if the government retained the lease and wanted to sublet it to someone else I guess they could throw them out, but that's not what it says. I think the other docs are about the government wanting to dispense with properties it owns (or leases?). Maybe the government owns that property and they were leasing it to the university and the article got it wrong. I'm just trying to follow what's written in the article and it's unclear where the onus really lies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read