With respect to the Chronicle’s report that Mike Kriozer isn’t planning on paying at least five million dollars of fees to San Francisco related to the development of One Rincon Hill, a plugged-in reader reports:

[This] might be a leverage move by Kriozere in order to push the City to become a partial investor in the second tower [of One Rincon Hill] through the use of Federal stimulus money. He announced last month at an HOA meeting that his company was in talks with the City about this possibility and this could be his way a creating a quid pro quo (i.e., if you loan in with Fed money, I’ll pay the development fees). Otherwise, I agree that it makes no sense because he’s alienating the City and still needs to sell the second tower to try and squeeze out a profit.

Comments on the original thread.
One Rincon Hill Still 70% Sold (And Reneging On Development Fees?) [SocketSite]
It’s “Official,” One Rincon Hill’s Tower Two Is Indefinitely On Hold [SocketSite]