[joshmaker]

From the article:

> “We’re of course thankful for the gift and we’re thankful for any gift to our most important institutions during this time,” said Matt Haney, another supervisor backing it. “But that doesn’t mean that we should for forever essentially have given away advertising rights on this most essential public institution.”

Doesn't seem like an unreasonable stance

[nopzor]

"we are thankful for the money you gave us in exchange for agreeing to naming rights. but it's unreasonable that we should have to give you the naming rights that we agreed to as a condition of taking your money"

does that seem more or less unreasonable?

because as far as i can tell, that's what happened.

[southeastern]

Hospitals are hurting right now. They cant do elective surgeries which is what their profit is made. Without that they're financials black holes. Zuckerberg is coming in at a dire time with his request of 50 years of naming rights. Does he owe the hospital anything? No, just like no one owes those sick and dying patients anything. But it's not unfair to point out the thorn on this 'rose'.

[nopzor]

the original deal happened in 2015.

i’m not a fan of zuckerberg by any means, but in this case i maintain it is disingenuous on the part of the hospital.