That's a non answer ( What's in it the the opponents?) and no answer in regard to ( Why didn't the city purchase the site when it originally went up for sale?)
The non answer indicates, IMHO, that some shenanigans may be afoot. The no answer indicates, IMHO, that the city never intended to purchase the site they just want to dictate who can use it.
Pretty shady dealings going on if you ask me when all of this could have been avoided by simply buying the property up front. Now it's a case of well, we don't want it but we don't want you to have it ... Sounds childish doesn't it.