Fact. The stadium is entering it's 3rd season. If I bought a car in January 2016 but left it in the garage with no tires on it for a year, then put tires on it and drove it January 2017, the car is still a year old.
The area "should be" into it's 3rd year of development around the park and yet, there's still nothing for whatever reason you want to slap on it.
"Should be" but isn't. For reasons. Not excuses. There are differences. And your analogy is wrong. A better analogy would be a manufacturer building 90% of a car, putting it into a dealers showroom, and then complaining about the fact that the dealer hasn't sold it after a year.
Wing...technically it is entering season 3. Hartford whiffed by Opening Day of the debut season. Last season then this upcoming season.
No, never mind, you guys are right, when you're a developer, and you find out that nobody will be using the stadium for a year, you definitely want to get shovels in the ground. It's definitely a valid argument to complain about the lack of development around a stadium that wasn't used for the first year, while the surrounding land remains under question due to a still-pending lawsuit. Title doesn't impact land development at all.
The stadium is entering its second season of use. Which is what drives development. An average of 6,000+ fans go to games. Once the lawsuit is settled, and ownership of the land is settled, and 12-24 months later there isn't anything being built, then you have a valid complaint. Until then, it's a ridiculous criticism, because once the developer was fired, the completion delayed, and the development rights delayed, it was virtually impossible for any development to take place.