◆ SpookStack

San Francisco File #62~2812 | , Respondents ood misconceived their onse and hed brought their plans in Piecemenl, thus confusing the issue. He stated that if they had brought oll thoir plans in at the first hecsring so thet he could sea them as he .aid2 upon the conclusion of the hacring, that the entire project of the eosino, hotel ani shops was conecivec ond started prior to March 26, 1946, he would have ruled in favor of the Respondents at the time of the first hearinge He stated that the Respondents apparently thought thot they had tp show the basic plan of January 12, 1946 in order to prove thet they were engaged on ao projedt embracing the casino, hotel and shops from the be- ginnin:, rather than from sometime in March, | . It wos note! that tho Commissionsr was unable to point out the testimony on which he hai based his findings and it was apparent that ho consitered the chief issue og to whether or nct there was one or more than one building. It was furthor o ent thot on this point he had delegato’ the docisiln al architect whom he hed appointed ‘to sive him indopeniont td al acvice. From the interview it was obvious that he gave chicf weisht from the testimony of individuals rogarded bx by him as being inicpendont, mainl the architect apoointed © by hin, and subject anc associates, who was callel to te ‘ iso lts apparently felt that, untcr the CPA Regulations, a crour cf practically independent buildings coule constitute one buildins, sinec ho goave as an example of ono build. ins that group cf buildin-s kmown as Rockefeller Cantcr in New York City. ae: thet he hea not been approached by y oo anyono durinz the entire Hearing an? stated that he had purposely given... 7 his decision immediately on the conclusion of the Inst day's testimony —s rathor thin to reserve it, since he folt that if anyone were going to approach him they would do so durins the time he had reserved his opinions ee! d cee ten me eee SE Ede CITE Cpr a rime tn ett iene te