What the City is saying in its response...

relies on the interpretation of what can be considered "substantial improvements" to the Casino building.  This term is defined by state statute and can be found in their response.  But the key point is that the building official has determined that since there were existing code deficiencies (documented by previous building officials) in the building that correcting those deficiencies should not be counted as "substantial improvements."  If those "substantial improvements" do not amount to more than 50 percent of the value of the existing building, then the project does not have to meet current code requirements - including a more fortified foundation as called for under coastal construction guidelines.

The city had Anderson and Carr complete an appraisal of the building's value and it came out to $2.8 million.  This is how Morganti worked out the equation based upon the appraisal:

So, according to the city's position, the "substantial improvements" are less than 50 percent of the $6 million cost of the project.

The problem with this sophisticated dance around the code is that there is NO BUILDING there to rehabilitate.  There is thin air where the building used to be.  If you go there today, there are no code deficiencies since the site is DEFICIENT OF A BUILDING!  The code deficiencies were corrected through the demolition.  What is going to be built there would have to be according to code anyway.

This creative interpretation supports those on the dais that have run under the banner of "saving the building" and the city continues to NOT ADMIT that the building is GONE.

The city has also been on the other side of this argument many times and has gone to the mat to defend the code - making sure that people do not try to wiggle out of current code requirements.  It is easier to look the other way when you have to enforce code requirements on yourself.  The city should be setting the example of how to do things the right way - not trying to game the system.