Columbus Center: RIP [Archive] - Page 8

Ned Flaherty

05-30-2009, 06:01 PM

The approvals that Ned is talking about are CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS, like if they want to build the next floor, or start with the tunnel, or blah blah blah, they get a permit, which is almost always a safety formality. I don't see how it will be any different with this.

Two facts are evident in the public records:
● Safety and quality certifications from sworn, independent engineers are required throughout this project’s design stage and its construction stage.
● This project has serious prerequisites to getting its Boston Building Permit.

For those who don’t have the public records, or who don’t want to know what’s in them, here are the details.

1. During the design stage, this project requires certifications to state legislators and other top-level state officials, from sworn, independent engineers, that the designs are of the highest quality and safety._ These certifications were never issued._ They were never even applied for.

2. In September 2008, the owners announced that they had replaced their “tunnel decks” with cheaper, faster, less durable “tunnel platforms.”_ These platform designs were never even submitted to the sworn, independent engineers for quality control review.

3. After design quality is certified, this project requires $295 million in pre-paid performance bonds._ These bonds were never bought.

4. After the performance bonds are bought, this project requires completed railway and roadway tunnels underneath the 7-acre site._ These tunnels were never started.

5. After the tunnels are completed, this project requires millions of dollars in pre-paid Boston Building Permit fees (latest City estimate is $5,085,940)._ These fees were never paid.

So, this project is still years and millions of dollars away from its Boston Building Permit, which is far more than “a safety formality.”

Ned Flaherty

05-30-2009, 06:11 PM

BRA lists this project as "Board Approved".

For this project, the BRA hasn’t updated its web site in 6 years._ It was approved on 10 July 2003, but over the next 6 years . . .

● The former owner (Winn) sold the proposal to new owners (California).
● The new owners refused to provide the required $295 million performance bonds.
● The new owners defaulted on original lease, and refused to sign an amended one.
● Most of the rent was never paid.
● Nothing was built.
● The only state legislator who ever supported it was arrested, was indicted, and then resigned.
● The only state employee protecting the developers was laid off, and his position eliminated.
● No commercial lender ever risked even one dollar on this proposal.

Both the city and State were ready and waiting to hand over millions in cash and tax breaks.

You’re 6 years out of date._ After promising to seek no subsidies at all, the owners quietly sought 19 subsidies worth $604 million._ Some public subsidies were disapproved immediately upon request; others languished for years (neither approved nor disapproved); and others were pending for years but ultimately pulled back._ But by early 2009, virtually all had been canceled, withdrawn, reassigned, or otherwise rescinded.

. . . the only things lacking on this project are a lot of steel and someone to pay for it.

By that logic, the only thing needed for time tunnel travel is (a) lots of time tunnel and (b) someone to pay for it._ For any venture that’s just a plan on paper, it can be said that the “only things lacking” are resources and cash._ But on this proposal, the resources-and-cash gap remains enormous, and unfilled.

. . . where was this concern when tractors rolled onto the lot back in November of '07?

Since 1993, all concerns have been voiced, vetted, and recorded._ Each concern became a matter of public record as it arose._ Elected officials and government employees alike were aware of the slew of problems._ Every major issue has been mentioned in the 6 newspapers regularly covering this proposal.

. . . if someone started building an unauthorized skyscraper next door to me, you can be sure I wouldn't be screwing around on a message board . . .

No one started to build an unauthorized skyscraper._ If you don’t recall what happened, or if you need to know more, re-check the public records, which show:

● In September 2007, the new owner (California) stopped funding.
● From October 2007 through March 2008, the former owner (Winn) performed theatrically staged “site preparation and pre-construction activity” to (a) retain investor-owner interest; and (b) attract commercial construction loans.
● Shrubs were pulled, fences went up, and gravel was moved left and right.
● Nothing was ever built.
● In April 2008, the owners jointly claimed to have spent $110 million.

. . . And I wouldn't be a lone voice of dissent.

With this project, no dissenter has ever been alone._ State legislators, government agencies, elected officials, radio broadcasters, television broadcasters, and weekly and daily newspapers all heard from many people about plenty of issues._ The most recent 2 years of articles are on-line in this forum, and the rest of the over 1,000 articles are available elsewhere._ Every public comment letter is also still available.

People who associate only with cheerleaders for BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) continue to say that they see no issues in this proposal, but that’s only because they haven’t asked the right questions.

nova617

05-30-2009, 07:41 PM

Wow, he's REALLY still forcing it. This Rainman still has yet to find anything better to do with his life. Sad, really...

BarbaricManchurian

05-30-2009, 08:19 PM

Two facts are evident in the public records:
● Safety and quality certifications from sworn, independent engineers are required throughout this project’s design stage and its construction stage.
● This project has serious prerequisites to getting its Boston Building Permit.

For those who don’t have the public records, or who don’t want to know what’s in them, here are the details.

1. During the design stage, this project requires certifications to state legislators and other top-level state officials, from sworn, independent engineers, that the designs are of the highest quality and safety._ These certifications were never issued._ They were never even applied for.

2. In September 2008, the owners announced that they had replaced their “tunnel decks” with cheaper, faster, less durable “tunnel platforms.”_ These platform designs were never even submitted to the sworn, independent engineers for quality control review.

3. After design quality is certified, this project requires $295 million in pre-paid performance bonds._ These bonds were never bought.

4. After the performance bonds are bought, this project requires completed railway and roadway tunnels underneath the 7-acre site._ These tunnels were never started.

5. After the tunnels are completed, this project requires millions of dollars in pre-paid Boston Building Permit fees._ These fees were never paid.

So, this project is still years and millions of dollars away from its Boston Building Permit, which is far more than “a safety formality.”

If they are really serious about building the project (which they aren't, at least until the economy recovers), they will get these approvals without incident. Even if these approvals actually exist, they are not NIMBY-influenced, so a project with fully complete blueprints and BRA approval will receive the approval from the sworn, independent engineers without problem. This project has been endlessly scrutinized for over a decade; it's unlikely that something unexpected in the blueprints will pop up right when they are approving them!

tobyjug

05-30-2009, 08:21 PM

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/tobyjug_2008/athol-close.jpg

KentXie

05-30-2009, 08:44 PM

For this project, the BRA hasn’t updated its web site in 6 years._ It was approved on 10 July 2003, but over the next 6 years . . .

● The former owner (Winn) sold the proposal to new owners (California).
● The new owners refused to provide the required $295 million performance bonds.
● The new owners defaulted on original lease, and refused to sign an amended one.
● Most of the rent was never paid.
● Nothing was built.
● The only state legislator who ever supported it was arrested, was indicted, and then resigned.
● The only state employee protecting the developers was laid off, and his position terminated.
● No commercial lender ever risked even one dollar on this proposal.

Ned, what you wrote doesn't prove that it isn't approved. It's just the events of what happened after it was approved

By that logic, the only thing needed for time tunnel travel is (a) lots of time tunnel and (b) someone to pay for it._ For any venture that’s just a plan on paper, it can be said that the “only things lacking” are resources and cash._ But on this proposal, the resources-and-cash gap remains enormous, and unfilled.

So this proposal's resources-and-cash gap remains enormous, and unfilled. Your point? Regardless of the size of the gap and whether it is filled or not (obviously if it was, it would be going up now wouldn't it, Ned?), the fact remains, the only thing CC needed to get started was a few loans which were not rejected due to UFPs or the disappearance of a "needed" open air park.

No one started to build an unauthorized skyscraper._ If you don’t recall what happened, or if you need to know more, re-check the public records, which show:

● In September 2007, the new owner (California) stopped funding.
● From October 2007 through March 2008, the former owner (Winn) performed theatrically staged “site preparation and pre-construction activity” to (a) retain investor-owner interest; and (b) attract commercial construction loans.
● Shrubs were pulled, fences went up, and gravel was moved left and right.
● Nothing was ever built.
● In April 2008, the owners jointly claimed to have spent $110 million.

So the public records clearly state that Winn (as you paraphrased it) "performed theatrically staged 'site preparation and pre-construction activity' to (a) retain investor-owner interest; and (b) attract commercial construction loans." or were those words just added from your opinion and assumptions?

People who associate only with cheerleaders for BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) continue to say that they see no issues in this proposal, but that’s only because they haven’t asked the right questions.

They are no different than the NIMBYs who are grasping at straws to try to turn around an argument.

Ned Flaherty

05-31-2009, 08:58 AM

. . . they will get these approvals without incident . . . a project with fully complete blueprints and BRA approval will receive the approval from the sworn, independent engineers without problem. This project has been endlessly scrutinized for over a decade; it's unlikely that something unexpected in the blueprints will pop up right when they are approving them!

You’re ignoring the fact that not only are the blueprints not, as you wrote, “fully complete,” but they were never even started.

You’re also ignoring the fact that since you don’t know what the sworn independent engineers are going to be reviewing, and you don’t know what their mission is, it’s impossible for you to intelligently claim, as you wrote, that they will issue approvals “without incident.”

You’re also ignoring what’s occurred, and when it occurred._ The proposal has not been, as you wrote, “endlessly scrutinized for a decade.” _ In fact, during about 5 of the last 10 years, virtually nothing was happening in the “scrutiny” department._ The latest example of nothing happening is the replacement of tunnel decks with tunnel platforms._ The switcheroo was announced last September, and no further progress was made after that.

Ned Flaherty

05-31-2009, 09:16 AM

Ned, what you wrote doesn't prove that it isn't approved. It's just the events of what happened after it was approved

You’re forgetting how this discussion began, and why it continues.

When other forum members started simplistically claiming that the entire proposal was fully approved, I drilled down and explained that the project involves a long string of city, state, federal, and commercial approvals, and that some were issued, some were rescinded, some were never issued, and some were never even applied for.

That granular mix continues today.

Yes, everyone knows that the BRA issued a BRA approval on 10 July 2003._ But that’s never been a question, so it’s not relevant to this discussion._ That BRA approval is only one of many approvals, the other approvals are still outstanding, little has been done to get them, so project progress remains at a standstill._ That’s the point.

So this proposal's resources-and-cash gap remains enormous, and unfilled. Your point? Regardless of the size of the gap and whether it is filled or not (obviously if it was, it would be going up now wouldn't it, Ned?), the fact remains, the only thing CC needed to get started was a few loans which were not rejected due to UFPs or the disappearance of a "needed" open air park.

No, just a “few loans” is not all that the project needed to “get started.”_ It needs far more things than you realize.

• One thing is $295 million worth of performance bonds.
• Another thing is approval to borrow the entire $850 million.
• Another thing is approval to spend it (each lender requires that every other lender remain involved).
• Another thing is one half billion dollars worth of liability insurance coverage — every year.
• Additional things are also needed (already explained in prior posts, so not repeated here).

Environmental issues and master plan violations are routine factors in making decisions about speculative real estate investments, especially ones totaling $850 million._ So unless each lender personally assured you of what he considered and what he did not consider in his decision, and unless each lender confirmed to you that he made two extremely unusual exceptions in this case, then it’s ridiculous for you to try to claim that these routine factors were skipped.

So the public records clearly state that Winn (as you paraphrased it) "performed theatrically staged 'site preparation and pre-construction activity' to (a) retain investor-owner interest; and (b) attract commercial construction loans." or were those words just added from your opinion and assumptions?

The “site preparation and pre-construction activity” are the words coined — and used repeatedly — by the project managers themselves, throughout 2007 and again in 2008._ The necessities of retaining increasingly skeptical investor-owners and attracting additional lenders were admitted by the project managers in interviews at city, state, and federal agencies, and also during newspaper interviews._ Additional reports from other sources matched what was reported from the interviews.

The half year of theatrically staged activity did not succeed._ It didn’t reassure the investor-owners (California), it didn’t sign up the additional pension plans and other hoped-for lenders, and it didn’t produce the cash needed to buy the $295 million in performance bonds and the steel for the tunnels._ Since the managers spent a half year, at enormous cost, and built nothing, and since they failed to reach any of their goals, I say “theatrically staged” because those words best reflect the fact that the activity (a) was not what they said it was, and (b) accomplished nothing.

During my weekly meetings with the managers during the fall, winter, and spring of 2007-2008, it was clear that:
(1) they were chewing through their calendar;
(2) they weren’t getting anything done;
(3) they knew it; and
(4) it was their intent.

BarbaricManchurian

05-31-2009, 10:41 AM

You’re ignoring the fact that not only are the blueprints not, as you wrote, “fully complete,” but they were never even started.

You’re also ignoring the fact that since you don’t know what the sworn independent engineers are going to be reviewing, and you don’t know what their mission is, it’s impossible for you to intelligently claim, as you wrote, that they will issue approvals “without incident.”

You’re also ignoring what’s occurred, and when it occurred._ The proposal has not been, as you wrote, “endlessly scrutinized for a decade.” _ In fact, during about 5 of the last 10 years, virtually nothing was happening in the “scrutiny” department._ The latest example of nothing happening is the replacement of tunnel decks with tunnel platforms._ The switcheroo was announced last September, and no further progress was made after that.

Yes I do, I know how the process works, and if all the other projects under construction (including air rights) in Boston were approved without incident, I'll pretty much guarantee that this project will also be approved by these enginners without incident. Do you have a link to prove any of this? I'd really like to know the actual documents that show how the process, and maybe you can even send them to the newspapers!

bbfen

05-31-2009, 11:22 AM

Once the BRA approves, aren't all the rest revenue-generating formalities? My experience has always been it's like going to the Post Office a week before Christmas-----it may take forever to make your transaction, but you'll get it done.

kz1000ps

05-31-2009, 12:23 PM

I like cheese.

type001

05-31-2009, 06:02 PM

Ned, does your girlfriend think it's approved?

JohnAKeith

05-31-2009, 06:06 PM

Marty Walz is not against the project. She was quoted as saying, "I am not against the project, I am against public funding of the project." Do I need to find the quote?

bbfen

05-31-2009, 10:53 PM

Marty Walz is not against the project. She was quoted as saying, "I am not against the project, I am against public funding of the project." Do I need to find the quote?

John, I've got a really nice bridge for sale. Cheap!

Ned Flaherty

06-01-2009, 11:08 AM

Yes I do, I know how the process works. . .

No, you don’t know how the process works._ No one knows for sure how it works, because the processes required for modern air rights have never been used — anywhere — yet._ Your other inquiries (below) show that not only do you not know how this process works in reality (because no one does), but you don’t know how it works in theory, either.

. . . if all the other projects under construction (including air rights) in Boston were approved without incident, I'll pretty much guarantee that this project will also be approved by these enginners without incident.

Firstly, your big “if” above reveals that you still don’t even know whether all these projects were approved without incident._ So the discussion you’ve started about this is needless nonsense.

Secondly, a “pretty-much-guarantee” is no guarantee at all.

Do you have a link to prove any of this? I'd really like to know the actual documents that show how the process, and maybe you can even send them to the newspapers!

It’s too bad that only now for the first time you’d “like to know the actual documents that show the process.”_ Ridiculous discussions like this can be avoided altogether by just getting the documents first._ You didn’t get the public records related to your previous issues, so I don’t expect you’ll get these, either._ But, if you are serious about learning, then for starters, read . . .

■ Lease (MTA & CWCC, 2 May 2006)
■ Lease Amendment & Performance Bond terms (MTA, 29 February 2008)
■ Acts of 2008, Chapter 303 (Governor Patrick, 8 August 2008)
■ “Frustration is only thing rising, it seems” (Boston Globe, 4 October 2008)

KentXie

06-01-2009, 12:11 PM

I ave a question for you Ned not pertaining to the CC development. Where around exactly do you live in the South End? Do you live relatively close to CC or no? You don't have to answer the question if you feel that it is a private matter.

PaulC

06-01-2009, 12:47 PM

I hope one of the moderators will delete the phone number

Ned Flaherty

06-01-2009, 01:06 PM

I ave a question for you Ned not pertaining to the CC development. Where around exactly do you live in the South End? . . .

KentXie / DarkFenX, if your question about where I live does not pertain to Columbus Center, then you have no business posting it in this forum.

And if all you want is the answer, it’s public information, and you don’t have to ask me to get it.

Obviously, however, in your mind this question has everything to do with Columbus Center, because you and other forum members have asked and re-asked about it many times over the last few years.

To summarize:_ I was the first person to move into 75 Clarendon Street, and have lived there for 19 years._ Since 1993, I have continued fighting to tunnel over the entire I-90 corridor, and develop it above, using qualified developers, competitive bidding, full financial disclosure, and the “first, do no harm” principle with respect to environmental issues.

Since the publication of the Turnpike Master Plan on 28 June 2000, I have advocated for city and state officials to comply with it, and to enforce it.

But they refused.

So the city is now in its 14th year of being stuck with:
• a sole-source developer;
• with no equivalent experience;
• no financial disclosure (except what the FBI found while trailing Senator Wilkerson for bribery);
• fraudulent subsidy applications;
• rescinded subsidies;
• fraudulent testimony that “air-tight” tunnels will cleanse the community air;
• a lease that was defaulted on over 3 years ago;
• no performance bonds;
• no bank loans;
• a 30-year project calendar; and
• new west coast owners who halted funding in September 2007.

And those are just the highlights of what’s gone wrong.

For years, other forum members obsessed under wrong and imaginary worries about the views from my home._ But the developer’s model and an aerial photo finally laid all that foolishness to rest on 21 August 2008._ Re-read post #s 1288, 1289, and 1290 for details.

type001

06-01-2009, 01:52 PM

I hope one of the moderators will delete the phone number

Why? It's public information easily found online.

briv

06-01-2009, 02:06 PM

I deleted Ned's private info. I realize that it's public information, but let's not go there.

BarbaricManchurian

06-01-2009, 03:18 PM

No, you don’t know how the process works._ No one knows for sure how it works, because the processes required for modern air rights have never been used — anywhere — yet._ Your other inquiries (below) show that not only do you not know how this process works in reality (because no one does), but you don’t know how it works in theory, either.

Firstly, your big “if” above reveals that you still don’t even know whether all these projects were approved without incident._ So the discussion you’ve started about this is needless nonsense.

Secondly, a “pretty-much-guarantee” is no guarantee at all.

It’s too bad that only now for the first time you’d “like to know the actual documents that show the process.”_ Ridiculous discussions like this can be avoided altogether by just getting the documents first._ You didn’t get the public records related to your previous issues, so I don’t expect you’ll get these, either._ But, if you are serious about learning, then for starters, read . . .

■ Lease (MTA & CWCC, 2 May 2006)
■ Lease Amendment & Performance Bond terms (MTA, 29 February 2008)
■ Acts of 2008, Chapter 303 (Governor Patrick, 8 August 2008)
■ “Frustration is only thing rising, it seems” (Boston Globe, 4 October 2008)

How did the other projects (including the Pru, Copley Plaza, and more modern developments) get under construction then? (Don't tell me "wahhhhhhhhhhh, the rules have changed, because I know that, but they haven't changed how you described them to be, because if they did, nothing would get built) And how is the Intercontinental Hotel and Fenway Center not developments that required "the processes required for modern air rights"? It's just a very strict definition created by you so you can make your straw man argument against Columbus Center.

BarbaricManchurian

06-01-2009, 03:24 PM

Also, how about all the UFPs spewing from Back Bay Station and the Hancock garage, almost directly across the street from your house? They are already there, adding more has not been proven to increase the lethality and if you are so afraid of them, why live in a place where they are spewing from across the street?

PaulC

06-01-2009, 03:41 PM

Why? It's public information easily found online.

are you sugesting people call him at home?

nova617

06-01-2009, 05:42 PM

My amigo from out of town asked why Boston is so hated by so many. Then I showed him Ned's posts, and he understood.

KentXie

06-01-2009, 08:48 PM

KentXie / DarkFenX, if your question about where I live does not pertain to Columbus Center, then you have no business posting it in this forum.

And if all you want is the answer, it’s public information, and you don’t have to ask me to get it.

Obviously, however, in your mind this question has everything to do with Columbus Center, because you and other forum members have asked and re-asked about it many times over the last few years.

To summarize:_ I was the first person to move into 75 Clarendon Street, and have lived there for 19 years._ Since 1993, I have continued fighting to tunnel over the entire I-90 corridor, and develop it above, using qualified developers, competitive bidding, full financial disclosure, and the “first, do no harm” principle with respect to environmental issues.

Since the publication of the Turnpike Master Plan on 28 June 2000, I have advocated for city and state officials to comply with it, and to enforce it.

But they refused.

So the city is now in its 14th year of being stuck with:
• a sole-source developer;
• with no equivalent experience;
• no financial disclosure (except what the FBI found while trailing Senator Wilkerson for bribery);
• fraudulent subsidy applications;
• rescinded subsidies;
• fraudulent testimony that “air-tight” tunnels will cleanse the community air;
• a lease that was defaulted on over 3 years ago;
• no performance bonds;
• no bank loans;
• a 30-year project calendar; and
• new west coast owners who halted funding in September 2007.

And those are just the highlights of what’s gone wrong.

For years, other forum members obsessed under wrong and imaginary worries about the views from my home._ But the developer’s model and an aerial photo finally laid all that foolishness to rest on 21 August 2008._ Re-read post #s 1288, 1289, and 1290 for details.

It's not pertaining to the CC development in that your house has nothing to do with the development itself. Maybe you wanted a pm instead? I asked you because I know some people find giving away an address on the internet unsafe and thus felt that I should get your permission first. Thanks for the information anyways. I just wanted to see how close you are from the impact zone. Don't get so stingy.

Your post does raise a question though. What are your views over the other developments on air-right, specifically One Kenmore, and did you happen to have an opinion over the 50 story tower that was going to be built over Boylston but was rejected?

In addition, I want to reiterate what many forumers have said already and stop fighting with Ned. It's pretty much crying over spill milk. He isn't the reason why CC was stalled (though the method he uses to respond is irritating). The fact remains, it doesn't seem like this project will move forward in the near future. Also, the project we hear about now isn't the same as it is when it was first approved. We just have to wait for the new development team to see the changes they will make. Maybe they will make a better project. The problem is, when will we see it.

Ned Flaherty

06-04-2009, 10:26 AM

How did the other projects (including the Pru, Copley Plaza, and more modern developments) get under construction then?

The Copley Plaza that you ask about is a Beaux Arts style hotel, built in 1912, the year the Titanic sank._ Boston air rights weren’t even invented until 51 years later, so the Copley Plaza has nothing to do with this discussion._ Prudential Center was built in 1963._ Copley Place Mall, Copley Residences, and Copley Marriott were built in 1983._ In the 26 to 46 years that have passed since they were built, there have been significant changes in politics, economics, society, environment, and engineering.

. . . Don't tell me . . . the rules have changed, because I know that, but they haven't changed how you described them to be . . .

No, you’re wrong. The rules did change, and they changed exactly as I said . . .
■ The Boston Zoning Code was first adopted in 1966.
■ The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act was first enacted in 1977.
■ Zoning Code Article 80 was first enacted in 1996.
■ The Turnpike Master Plan was adopted in 2000.
■ The Inspection Protocols for privately owned publicly tunnels used were adopted in 2008.
■ The Public Construction Reform law was adopted in 2008.

. . . the rules . . . haven't changed how you described them to be, because if they did, nothing would get built . . .

No, you’re wrong a 2nd time._ During the 46-year period that the current set of modern air rights regulations were being implemented, thousands of projects got built.

. . . And how is the Intercontinental Hotel and Fenway Center not developments that required "the processes required for modern air rights"?

You’re wrong a 3rd time._ I never said Intercontinental Hotel is an air rights project, because it is not._ It is not affected by any air rights regulations._ I never said Fenway Center is not an air rights project, because it is._ It is subject to all current and future air rights regulations.

. . . "the processes required for modern air rights" . . . It's just a very strict definition created by you so you can make your straw man argument against Columbus Center.

No, you’re wrong a 4th time._ The statutes, regulations, and policies applicable to modern (post-1986) air rights are not hand grenades created by me to shoot distractions at Columbus Center, or at any other project._ Those statutes, regulations, and policies were proposed, revised, and adopted by state legislators, governors, city councilors, municipal agencies, and state agencies, over 46 years, to carry out the will of the residents of Boston, and the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Also, how about all the UFPs spewing from Back Bay Station and the Hancock garage, almost directly across the street from your house?

“How about x?” is not a question._ Consequently, answering it is not an option._ If you have a specific question, you can play again.

. . . adding more has not been proven to increase the lethality . . .

No, you’re wrong a 5th time, because death rates have been measured, and you’re wrong a 6th time, because you mean “mortality” not “lethality.”

The National Library of Medicine, at the U. S. National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, has thousands of studies about particulate matter air pollution._ Some of those studies refer to worsened health impacts when aggravated by shorter distances between sources and victims, and worsened impacts when aggravated by increased exposure over time.

These issues of distance and exposure time are critical to understanding the health harm, and to mitigating the environmental damage.

Therefore, on 18 June 2008, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University — conveniently located one block east of Columbus Center! — precisely to measure the time/space gradients of near-source air pollution on its victims.

. . . if you are so afraid of them, why live in a place where they are spewing from across the street?

When I moved next to the transportation corridor in 1990, I did not know about UFP air pollution._ Had I known, I would have moved several blocks farther south or north._ After getting educated about the problem, I decided — temporarily, at least — to make progress toward a solution, rather than aggravate the problem by ignoring it, fleeing it, and leaving it to those who know nothing at all about it, and to those who aren’t inclined to learn about it, and to developers who deny that it exists at all (despite 3 decades of scientific evidence)._ In the long run, I may, indeed, move farther away from it, where I can continue working toward a citywide solution, but in better health.

Ned Flaherty

06-04-2009, 11:11 AM

. . . What are your views over the other developments on air-right, specifically One Kenmore, and did you happen to have an opinion over the 50 story tower that was going to be built over Boylston but was rejected?

First, 4 clarifications:

1. You’re asking about proposals, not completed developments.

2. You’re asking about the current Fenway Center, not the previous One Kenmore.

3. Boylston Square was unpopular, but it was never rejected._ The owners simply stopped work, said they might return, and then never did (not unlike Columbus Center).

4. These are all of Boston’s I-90 air rights properties . . .

■ Columbus Center proposal (parcels 16-17-18-19)
■ Fenway Center proposal (parcel 7)
■ Kenmore/Fenway proposal (parcels 8-9-10)
■ Boylston Square proposal (parcels 12-13-14-15)
■ Trinity proposal (parcels 12-13)
■ Weiner-ADG Scotia II proposal (parcels 12-14-15)
■ Carpenter proposal (parcels 14-15)
■ Chiofaro proposal (parcel 15)
■ not yet proposed (parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23)

Boston has no other air rights properties.

Now, to answer the question._ Since 1993, I have advocated strongly for enclosing the entire I-90 corridor below, and developing it above, using:

• screened developers,
• with the experience and ability to succeed,
• selected from among competitive bids,
• that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan,
• who provide full financial disclosure,
• who pay fair market value for the property, and
• who mitigate the toxic air so that no one living or working along the corridor suffers increased public health risks.

My position has not changed change from one property to the next, from year to year, or based on where I live.

My long-running recommendation to replace the Columbus Center team with competitive bidders does not reflect any opposition to air rights development; on the contrary, it results from my dedication to successful air rights development._ The sooner that Columbus Center is evicted, the sooner that these parcels can be successfully developed.

. . . He isn't the reason why CC was stalled . . .

Not exactly._ There are two reasons that the proposal stalled before anything was ever built._ I am responsible for pulling the public records and showing the public, the media, government, and lenders where to look, but the owners are responsible for their own actions — all freely taken — that led to the failures of all their re-proposals.

The developers doomed their own project by:

• donating $10,000 to a governor to get a no-bid, no-qualifications, no-disclosure deal;
• owning the majority of seats on the Mayor’s Citizens Advisory Committee;
• paying an audio company to secretly record public meetings;
• editing the meeting minutes to shrink criticism and expand compliments;
• blocking citizens’ recording of public meetings;
• paying for the “independent” consultants who advised the public and the government;
• paying the consultants to halt their studies and never deliver their conclusions;
• testifying to City Council that the tunnels had air-tight seals that cleansed the community’s air;

• seeking public subsidies when profit is already $346 million without subsidies;
• proposing to be subsidy-free and then seeking 19 subsidies worth $605 million;
• filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming 100% financing that never existed;
• filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming public infrastructure that never existed;
• refusing to allow an independent public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies;

• deleting the required 2-acre public park and replacing it with a 633-car garage;
• converting the promised public parks into private condominium gardens;

• promising to own and operate the project for decades, but selling it before it was even built;
• defaulting on the lease 3 years ago;
• never getting state quality-control certification for the old tunnel deck design;
• never getting state quality-control certification for the new tunnel platform design;
• never buying the $295 million in state-required performance bonds;’
• insisting on a 10-year construction delay between the tunnels and the buildings;
• giving $10,000 to a legislator who the FBI tracked, recorded, and arrested for bribery;

etcetera.

. . . the project we hear about now isn't the same as it is when it was first approved . . .

Whether that’s so all depends on your definition of “project.”

If by “project” you mean ONLY the 6 buildings and 3 open spaces spread across 5 air rights properties, then nothing has changed._ Mayor Menino’s development staff approved the proposal on 10 July 2003._ No Notices-of-Project-Change were ever filed._ No Planned-Development-Area updates were ever filed._ The owners claim that their proposed buildings haven’t changed one iota.

But if by “project” you mean the ENTIRE written proposal, then yes, much has changed, because . . .
• the proposed completion date of 2007 is now 2026;
• the owners now want taxpayers to pay costs and profits of their 100% privately owned project;
• the public parks have been privatized into condominium gardens;
• the tunnels must be certified by sworn, independent quality-control engineers;
. . . and so on.

. . . We just have to wait for the new development team to see the changes they will make.

There is no “new development team.”

CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC is the current owner._ But they defaulted on their property lease 3 years ago, never qualified for commercial financing, and never built anything._ The proposal that they own has no commercial value, so they have no potential buyers.

It’s true that about one year ago The Beal Companies and The Related Companies wanted to snap up the failed project at a deep discount._ They did get permission to review the project records so they could decide what amount to offer._ Their 6-week study was completed on time, as planned, last fall._ Despite repeated promises to disclose their findings, the results apparently were too grim to release._ They missed all four of their self-imposed deadlines (15 October 2008, 15 November, 31 December, 8 April 2009)._ Nothing was ever published.

The forum cheerleaders who keep chanting “it’s BRA-approved” haven’t yet realized that once a proposal becomes worthless, having a 6-year-old city approval is irrelevant, especially when 27 other approvals remain outstanding.

Once any project becomes worthless, old approvals have no value to anyone.

Ned Flaherty

06-04-2009, 11:17 AM

. . . Stick with UFP's. At least there you could appear to have a valid opinion since nobody knows what the hell those are. . .

For Seamus McFly and others who still don’t know what UFP air pollution is, or who don’t know that the effects are deadly, or who deny the harm as part of their development industry gravy train business model, this week’s news will bring you up to date:

Cardiovascular mortality rates among people exposed to fine particles are twice as high as previously thought — 24% instead of 12% — say scientists at the University of Ottawa working for the Health Effects Institute, an organization established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency._ Their extended epidemiological analysis used data gathered from 500,000 people for up to 18 years._ The link between fine particles and cardiopulmonary disease was established two decades ago._ On 24 February 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared current EPA regulatory levels inadequate, and the Obama administration is now writing updated regulations.

www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/earth/03soot.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt

KentXie

06-04-2009, 11:17 AM

First, 4 clarifications:

1. You’re asking about proposals, not completed developments.

2. You’re asking about the current Fenway Center, not the previous One Kenmore.

3. Boylston Square was unpopular, but it was never rejected._ The owners simply stopped work, said they might return, and then never did (not unlike Columbus Center).

4. These are all of Boston’s I-90 air rights properties . . .

■ Columbus Center proposal (parcels 16-17-18-19)
■ Fenway Center proposal (parcel 7)
■ Kenmore/Fenway proposal (parcels 8-9-10)
■ Boylston Square proposal (parcels 12-13-14-15)
■ Trinity proposal (parcels 12-13)
■ Weiner-ADG Scotia II proposal (parcels 12-14-15)
■ Carpenter proposal (parcels 14-15)
■ Chiofaro proposal (parcel 15)
■ not yet proposed (parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23)

Boston has no other air rights properties.

Now, to answer the question._ Since 1993, I have advocated strongly for enclosing the entire I-90 corridor below, and developing it above, using:

• screened developers,
• with the experience and ability to succeed,
• selected from among competitive bids,
• that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan,
• who provide full financial disclosure,
• who pay fair market value for the property, and
• who mitigate the toxic air so that no one living or working along the corridor suffers increased public health risks.

My position has not changed change from one property to the next, from year to year, or based on where I live.

My long-running recommendation to replace the Columbus Center team with competitive bidders does not reflect any opposition to air rights development; on the contrary, it results from my dedication to successful air rights development._ The sooner that Columbus Center is evicted, the sooner that these parcels can be successfully developed.

Not exactly._ There are two reasons that the proposal stalled before anything was ever built._ I am responsible for pulling the public records and showing the public, the media, government, and lenders where to look, but the owners are responsible for their own actions — all freely taken — that led to the failures of all their re-proposals.

The developers doomed their own project by:

• donating $10,000 to a governor to get a no-bid, no-qualifications, no-disclosure deal;
• owning the majority of seats on the Mayor’s Citizens Advisory Committee;
• paying an audio company to secretly record public meetings;
• editing the meeting minutes to shrink criticism and expand compliments;
• blocking citizens’ recording of public meetings;
• paying for the “independent” consultants who advised the public and the government;
• paying the consultants to halt their studies and never deliver their conclusions;
• testifying to City Council that the tunnels had air-tight seals that cleansed the community’s air;

• seeking public subsidies when profit is already $346 million without subsidies;
• proposing to be subsidy-free and then seeking 19 subsidies worth $605 million;
• filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming 100% financing that never existed;
• filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming public infrastructure that never existed;
• refusing to allow an independent public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies;

• deleting the required 2-acre public park and replacing it with a 633-car garage;
• converting the promised public parks into private condominium gardens;

• promising to own and operate the project for decades, but selling it before it was even built;
• defaulting on the lease 3 years ago;
• never getting state quality-control certification for the old tunnel deck design;
• never getting state quality-control certification for the new tunnel platform design;
• never buying the $295 million in state-required performance bonds;’
• insisting on a 10-year construction delay between the tunnels and the buildings;
• giving $10,000 to a legislator who the FBI tracked, recorded, and arrested for bribery;

etcetera.

Whether that’s so all depends on your definition of “project.”

If by “project” you mean ONLY the 6 buildings and 3 open spaces spread across 5 air rights properties, then nothing has changed._ Mayor Menino’s development staff approved the proposal on 10 July 2003._ No Notices-of-Project-Change were ever filed._ No Planned-Development-Area updates were ever filed._ The owners claim that their proposed buildings haven’t changed one iota.

But if by “project” you mean the ENTIRE written proposal, then yes, much has changed, because . . .
• the proposed completion date of 2007 is now 2026;
• the owners now want taxpayers to pay costs and profits of their 100% privately owned project;
• the public parks have been privatized into condominium gardens;
• the tunnels must be certified by sworn, independent quality-control engineers;
. . . and so on.

There is no “new development team.”

CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC is the current owner._ But they defaulted on their property lease 3 years ago, never qualified for commercial financing, and never built anything._ The proposal that they own has no commercial value, so they have no potential buyers.

It’s true that about one year ago The Beal Companies and The Related Companies wanted to snap up the failed project at a deep discount._ They did get permission to review the project records so they could decide what amount to offer._ Their 6-week study was completed on time, as planned, last fall._ Despite repeated promises to disclose their findings, the results apparently were too grim to release._ They missed all four of their self-imposed deadlines (15 October 2008, 15 November, 31 December, 8 April 2009)._ Nothing was ever published.

The forum cheerleaders who keep chanting “it’s BRA-approved” haven’t yet realized that once a proposal becomes worthless, having a 6-year-old city approval is irrelevant, especially when 27 other approvals remain outstanding.

Once any project becomes worthless, old approvals have no value to anyone.

God must you respond in such an aggressive manner? (I'm talking about the bottom half of your post) You sound like a cranky old man. I was going to respond to your post to clarify what I mean but decided against it because you probably respond as though you are in a fight.

atlantaden

06-04-2009, 01:16 PM

^^^^^^^

KentXie, you haven't figured it out yet? Ned's off his medication!! It's the only thing that explains his rants!

tobyjug

06-04-2009, 03:04 PM

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/tobyjug_2008/athol-close.jpg

"Dad, have we left that town yet?"

SeamusMcFly

06-04-2009, 04:48 PM

Man you either really are Rainman (an idiot savant) or you have way too much time on your hands. When the hell did I even write that. I remember that I did, and still stick by it, but crimony I couldn't tell you when.

No, you’re wrong a 4th time._ The statutes, regulations, and policies applicable to modern (post-1986) air rights are not hand grenades created by me to shoot distractions at Columbus Center, or at any other project._ Those statutes, regulations, and policies were proposed, revised, and adopted by state legislators, governors, city councilors, municipal agencies, and state agencies, over 46 years, to carry out the will of the residents of Boston, and the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Now I have to ask you. Did you type that with a straight face or fully sober? No freakin way. If you haven't noticed, the groups of people you listed rarely if ever, evvvvveeerr have the wills of the residents or citizens in mind when they make their wacky harebrained decisions. Those people created and/or revised the statutes and regulations, but not with our best interests in mind. That may be just an opinion, but one with well over 46 years of history to back it up.

The little blurb on fine particles, and not Ultra Fine Particles to nit pick as you love to, does not answer the question as to what they are. ultra fine particles of what? Anything? Arsenic? Opium? Dunkin Donuts powdered donut dust?

I have not denied they are harmful and or contribute to health conditions. I have questioned whether there is a method to remove them, and offered up ideas. I have taken issue with the way you have pimped them out as a method to stop the insanity that is this terrible project (I like the project actually), since they are not regulated and as such should not be a major speed bump. If the EPA requires them, then they should be added. Do I think measured could or should be taken? Sure. But, add incentives if you want them. Not just say, I think they are bad and so does Ottawa, and until you get rid of them you can't build.

There must be incentives to go above and beyond. Conscience is one thing, but funding does not typically carry a large percentage for conscience.

If this industry is some kind of gravy train, I think I'm in coach, cuz there ain't no food service back here. This industry has been good to me, but it asks a lot in return, and then will send you out the door with no second thoughts.

I shall rest again from this thread for a while.

KentXie

06-04-2009, 05:04 PM

^^Forget it. It's impossible to have a civilized conversation with someone like him. His response is in the form of an argument. His attitude is that of a person who takes offense to statements that aren't even offensive. He believes that every statement we make have some underlying negative meaning to it. He's paranoid, cranky, and arrogant.

stellarfun

06-04-2009, 07:41 PM

For Seamus McFly and others who still don’t know what UFP air pollution is, or who don’t know that the effects are deadly, or who deny the harm as part of their development industry gravy train business model, this week’s news will bring you up to date:

Cardiovascular mortality rates among people exposed to fine particles are twice as high as previously thought — 24% instead of 12% — say scientists at the University of Ottawa working for the Health Effects Institute, an organization established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency._ Their extended epidemiological analysis used data gathered from 500,000 people for up to 18 years._ The link between fine particles and cardiopulmonary disease was established two decades ago._ On 24 February 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared current EPA regulatory levels inadequate, and the Obama administration is now writing updated regulations.

www.NYTimes.com/2009/06/03/Science/Earth/03Soot.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=soot%20Particles&st=cse (http://www.NYTimes.com/2009/06/03/Science/Earth/03Soot.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=soot%20Particles&st=cse)

Ned Flaherty, time and time again in this thread, your claims of thousands of completed research studies demonstrating the hazard of UFPs have been debunked, but like a stubborn donkey you persist in resurrecting the claim. Your continued inability to distinguish between fine particles and ultra fine particles is bewildering. Your persistent failure to acknowledge, let alone accept, the ambient improvements that are resulting from controls, current and future, on fine particles implies that perhaps you prefer pollution over abatement, thus allowing you to continue flogging the prostrate horse of unabated particulate emissions. You seem oblivious to geographical and climatological differences, as if Los Angeles County and Suffolk County are mirror images of each other. You wear the mantle of pretense and prevarication well.

Roxxma

06-05-2009, 11:22 AM

For some reason I think of this every time I read this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRKI-uFGj1g

Ned Flaherty

06-05-2009, 02:59 PM

. . . The little blurb on fine particles, and not Ultra Fine Particles . . . does not answer the question as to what they are. ultra fine particles of what? Anything? Arsenic? Opium? Dunkin Donuts powdered donut dust? . . .

Particulate matter air pollution is classified as Coarse, Fine, or Ultrafine, all of which are known to be harmful, in different ways._ In 1997, Congress authorized the U.S. EPA to create five university-based PMRCs (Particulate Matter Research Centers) to study exposure, dosimetry and modeling, toxicology, and epidemiology.

For nearly 2 years, I’ve been referring forum members to sources that provide chemical, medical, practical, and financial definitions for both health risks and mitigation._ You need to re-visit:

■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/)
■ Harvard University Particulate Center (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/epacenter/)
■ California Air Resources Board (http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm)

. . . I have taken issue with the way you have pimped them out as a method to stop the insanity that is this terrible project . . .

There is no need for you to take issue, because I never said that particulate matter air pollution is a method to stop Columbus Center.

Instead, I have always said that state officials should:_ (1) forbid the increase of PM air pollution for anyone working or living along the corridor; and (2) enforce the owners’ testimony given to City Council that the tunnels underneath their 7-acre complex clean the community and are — in their own words — “hermetically sealed” (i.e., airtight).

. . . since they are not regulated and as such should not be a major speed bump. . .

Untrue._ Coarse and fine particles are already nationally regulated._ Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations, are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth, and are about to be regulated by the federal government.

. . . add incentives if you want them. Not just say, I think they are bad and so does Ottawa, and until you get rid of them you can't build. . .

The incentives you are thinking of don’t truly work, because all incentives do is create a legal means of bribery by which developers avoid mitigation by buying their way out of having to do it._

Because the public health risks of particulate matter air pollution are proven to include birth defects, incurable illness (heart disease, lung disease, cancer), and premature mortality, it is bad public policy let developers buy their way out of compliance._ The only way to avoid the public health risk is to requiring developers to solve the problem, period.

Ned Flaherty

06-05-2009, 03:01 PM

. . . your claims of thousands of completed research studies demonstrating the hazard of UFPs have been debunked . . .

Untrue._ The thousands of studies I’ve referred to since 2007 cover all three sizes of particulate matter:_ coarse, fine, and ultrafine._ The older studies focus more on coarse and fine particles, and the newer ones more on ultrafine particles (UFPs)._ Those thousands of studies are found or referenced at the links I’ve provided multiple times._ No scientific or medical literature has been published that “debunks” these studies.

. . .Your continued inability to distinguish between fine particles and ultra fine particles is bewildering.

You’re only bewildered because you don’t recall exactly what I said._ I’ve always recognized the differences between coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles, but all particulate matter is an outstanding issue – in all three sizes – at any air rights site in Boston.

. . .Your persistent failure to acknowledge, let alone accept, the ambient improvements that are resulting from controls, current and future, on fine particles implies that perhaps you prefer pollution over abatement . . .

Untrue._ I’ve always acknowledged that gradual, small improvements are occurring with fine particles._ But much more abatement of fine particles is possible, and much, much more abatement of ultrafine particles is possible, since there’s virtually no abatement now._ All in all, no one should be allowed to build anything that creates unnecessary, avoidable public health risks, and that’s what the latest Columbus Center and Fenway Center proposals would do, as currently written.

. . .You seem oblivious to geographical and climatological differences, as if Los Angeles County and Suffolk County are mirror images of each other. You wear the mantle of pretense and prevarication well.

Untrue._ I never suggested that Massachusetts and California have the same weather._ In fact, I’ve always acknowledged just what the PM studies acknowledge:_ that location can affect the detailed statistics about who is affected, by which health risks, how soon, how badly, etcetera._ And that is one of the reasons that Massachusetts air rights developers now are required to quantify and mitigate the public health risks posed by their proposals.

Ned Flaherty

06-05-2009, 03:04 PM

. . . must you respond in such an aggressive manner? . . . I was going to respond to your post to clarify what I mean but decided against it because you probably respond as though you are in a fight . . . paranoid, cranky, and arrogant.

Rather than sulk away with hurt feelings, remember that this not a one-to-one letter-writing club where you get personal replies tailored only to you, but a public forum, where posts are tailored for the group, and thus have to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, where most of the forgetfulness, misunderstanding, and ignorance arises.

Whenever the facts that I report feel hard-hitting or overbearing to you, remember that I’m not writing to you personally, but to the entire membership, in which many know very little about this proposal, some don’t remember or understand what they read (or write), and a few occasionally drop in, but just to call names and quickly leave again.

tobyjug

06-05-2009, 08:52 PM

A drop in comment:

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/tobyjug_2008/art_vomit1.jpg

bbfen

06-05-2009, 09:22 PM

A drop in comment:

image

tobyjug, for the win

KentXie

06-05-2009, 10:20 PM

Rather than sulk away with hurt feelings, remember that this not a one-to-one letter-writing club where you get personal replies tailored only to you, but a public forum, where posts are tailored for the group, and thus have to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, where most of the forgetfulness, misunderstanding, and ignorance arises.

Whenever the facts that I report feel hard-hitting or overbearing to you, remember that I’m not writing to you personally, but to the entire membership, in which many know very little about this proposal, some don’t remember or understand what they read (or write), and a few occasionally drop in, but just to call names and quickly leave again.

Oh ok Ned. Oh and one more thing. Whether or not you are talking to me specifically or speaking to the whole forum, you still respond aggressively, act arrogant, and believe that everyone at the forum has a secret agenda in their statements.

KentXie

06-05-2009, 10:27 PM

Untrue._ Coarse and fine particles are already nationally regulated._ Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations, are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth, and are about to be regulated by the federal government.

Key words in these statements are "Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations", "are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth", and "are about to be regulated by the federal government."

Just so you can understand something as complicated as this, I will make this as simple as possible.

Some locations ≠ Boston or Massachusetts
Starting to be regulated ≠ is regulated
Are about to be regulated ≠ is regulated

SeamusMcFly

06-06-2009, 08:18 AM

Key words in these statements are "Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations", "are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth", and "are about to be regulated by the federal government."

Just so you can understand something as complicated as this, I will make this as simple as possible.

Some locations ≠ Boston or Massachusetts
Starting to be regulated ≠ is regulated
Are about to be regulated ≠ is regulated

Also means what I said was in fact true, and not untrue as you like to say.

The incentives you are thinking of don’t truly work, because all incentives do is create a legal means of bribery by which developers avoid mitigation by buying their way out of having to do it.

I don't think you are quite understanding what an incentive is. Incentives are offered to the developer as a means to gain additional things. Just like you can get tax incentives for buying energy star products or replacing your windows. Incentives are only typically offered for things that are above and beyond what is required. They don't offer incentives for putting a roof on your building, but they may if you make it a reflective white roof (they won't but maybe a green roof.)

Example: Clark County (Las Vegas) offered new construction huge incentives for building LEED certified buildings. The Sand's Corp. caught wind of this and made sure their new Palazzo would be LEED Silver and reap the tax breaks and what not associated with it. Here is a quick little blurb on it The biggest winners of the breaks included: MGM-Mirage’s Project City Center ($80M already and $900M over its life), Venetian’s Palazzo Tower, and Boyd Gaming’s Echelon Place (currently stalled).

This was offered by the County/City as incentive to build greener buildings which is a big thing in the middle of a desert.

What this means is that incentives are offered to the developer to construct something that is better than required in some way. It's a way to say we know it's expensive, but it's the right thing to do so we're going to make it a little easier on you. Doing the right thing is not always in the bottom line, and good publicity does not equal guaranteed money in your pocket.

You mention bribery, but once again it's back to extortion if an entity tries to force added cost on the developer even though there is no legislation to back up the demands.

Tell me what I say is untrue when it is. If there are regulations in the city of Boston against UFP's, then I mispoke. But, if there is legislation in "some" places and none of them is Boston, then do not try to say I spoke incorrectly. Cutting and patching pieces of what is said around little blurbs that seems to debunk them, does not in fact debunk anything. That is called propaganda. And, to be taken seriously by an obviously educated forum as the bulk of this one would seem to be, you have to do much better.

stellarfun

06-06-2009, 09:24 AM

[A.]Untrue._ The thousands of studies I’ve referred to since 2007 cover all three sizes of particulate matter:_ coarse, fine, and ultrafine._ The older studies focus more on coarse and fine particles, and the newer ones more on ultrafine particles (UFPs)._ Those thousands of studies are found or referenced at the links I’ve provided multiple times._ No scientific or medical literature has been published that “debunks” these studies.

[B.]You’re only bewildered because you don’t recall exactly what I said._ I’ve always recognized the differences between coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles, but all particulate matter is an outstanding issue – in all three sizes – at any air rights site in Boston.

[C.]Untrue._ I’ve always acknowledged that gradual, small improvements are occurring with fine particles._ But much more abatement of fine particles is possible, and much, much more abatement of ultrafine particles is possible, since there’s virtually no abatement now._ All in all, no one should be allowed to build anything that creates unnecessary, avoidable public health risks, and that’s what the latest Columbus Center and Fenway Center proposals would do, as currently written.

[D.]Untrue._ I never suggested that Massachusetts and California have the same weather._ In fact, I’ve always acknowledged just what the PM studies acknowledge:_ that location can affect the detailed statistics about who is affected, by which health risks, how soon, how badly, etcetera._ And that is one of the reasons that Massachusetts air rights developers now are required to quantify and mitigate the public health risks posed by their proposals.

A.) You are obfuscating. No one disputes that thousands of studies of particulates exist, but studies devoted exclusively to UFP are still few and far between. And a study of coarse or fine particulates cannot be extrapolated as covering UFPs as well. So your persistent claim of thousands of studies on UFPs is hokum.

B.) You have embellished your crusade against Columbus Center, and by extension the Turnpike Authority and the MBTA, by invoking the spectre of UFPs. I believe you have done so because UFPs, unlike the larger particulates, are neither currently regulated nor abated. One couldn't complain that Columbus Center would further pollute the environment when the sources of pollution in the immediate area are already being regulated. Columbus Center can't effectively address a pollutant straw man; against what UFP standard does one gauge effect? And which is why you have proposed, in the absence of a standard, that Columbus Center, as a matter of course, massively scrub the air in the vicinity of your condo of UFPs emitted by cars, trucks, and buses traveling the Pike, and the MBTA's diesel trains.

C.) Given your extensive knowledge of the science of fine particles and ultrafine particles, and of the technology for abating the leveld of these two classes of particulates in the ambient air, approximately what percentage of UFP emissions do you think will be abated as a consequence of further controls of fine particulates? To make it simpler, you can confine the analysis to diesel engines.

D.) You have regularly cited the several UFP studies that have been done, and abatement strategies resulting from those. The studies and the strategies are concentrated in southern California. You persist in asserting that what's good for Covina is good for Clarendon St.

Ned Flaherty

06-06-2009, 09:44 AM

Pike slammed for putting off air-rights plan
Boston Herald • June 5, 2009 • By Thomas Grillo

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has shelved a planned air-rights project near the Prudential Center that could net the cash-starved agency millions in leasing fees.

Pike officials have told the Boston Redevelopment Authority that it does not expect to select a developer anytime soon for Parcels 12-15 straddling Boston’s Back Bay and Fenway neighborhoods.

City Council President Michael Ross blasted the agency for the decision. “The developers should be given a chance to present their vision to the community and fill a gaping hole in the neighborhood,” he said. “The Turnpike doesn’t have any money; why would they miss a chance to earn some?”

In December, four developers offered competing plans, from housing to offices, that would transform a section of Boylston Street and Massachusetts Avenue and fill the space above the east-west highway.

At the time, the agency said the proposals offer opportunities to “fill in gaps over the turnpike and create stronger connections between the Pru, the Back Bay, Fenway, Kenmore Square and Massachusetts Avenue corridor.”

Carpenter & Co. proposed a 200-room hotel and office tower. The Chiofaro Co. pitched a 25-story office building. Weiner Ventures offered a 40-story tower with office and housing. And Trinity Financial was willing to build 546 units of housing in a pair of buildings at 11 and 14 stories.

But the Pike’s real estate projects appear to be in flux with the recent layoff of Stephen Hines, its chief development officer, and Shirin Karanfiloglu, a planner.

Jeffrey B. Mullan, the Turnpike’s executive director, did not return calls seeking comment yesterday.

Patrick Lee, principal at Trinity, said he wants to know how long the project will be delayed. “There’s an opportunity to build support for this project within the community now,” he said. “Having it ready to go when the economy turns is in the public’s interest.”

Ned Flaherty

06-06-2009, 09:54 AM

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority halted its work on Columbus Center in April 2009, just as the Columbus Center company halted its work in April 2008.

In both instances, work stopped because resources were exhausted. MTA has no schedule or plan for resuming any air rights development work.

I-90 air rights development had been managed by only two Massachusetts Turnpike Authority positions, and both were eliminated in April 2009: Chief Development Officer Stephen Hines ($136,475/year) and Director of Development & Planning Shirin Karanfiloglu.

MTA has no plans for additional work on any of the 8 proposals or 12 properties that had been pending for up to 13 years.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/I-90-Air-Rights-Status.jpg

Ned Flaherty

06-06-2009, 10:29 AM

. . . Starting to be regulated ≠ is regulated . . .

Untrue._ “Starting to be regulated” means a process has already begun being regulated, and some regulation is in effect, which is the case here in Massachusetts.

. . . Some locations ≠ Boston or Massachusetts . . .

Untrue again._ Regulation has begun across Massachusetts, including Boston._ When the Commonwealth began regulating ultrafine particulate matter on 14 November 2008, the state ordered the owners of Fenway Center to:

(1) address environmental impacts — actual and potential — of turnpike tunnel ventilation;
(2) identify on-site mitigation measures to reduce occupants’ exposure to ultrafine particulate matter.

The owners said they would quantify and mitigate as directed._ They have not done so._ Their proposal can not proceed until these (and other outstanding environmental issues) are resolved to the state’s satisfaction.

You may want to re-read my explanation of this in post #1729 on 29 April 2009.

KentXie

06-06-2009, 10:54 AM

Untrue._ “Starting to be regulated” means a process has already begun being regulated, and some regulation is in effect, which is the case here in Massachusetts.

Untrue again._ Regulation has begun across Massachusetts, including Boston._ When the Commonwealth began regulating ultrafine particulate matter on 14 November 2008, the state ordered the owners of Fenway Center to:

(1) address environmental impacts — actual and potential — of turnpike tunnel ventilation;
(2) identify on-site mitigation measures to reduce occupants’ exposure to ultrafine particulate matter.

The owners said they would quantify and mitigate as directed._ They have not done so._ Their proposal can not proceed until these (and other outstanding environmental issues) are resolved to the state’s satisfaction.

You may want to re-read my explanation of this in post #1729 on 29 April 2009.

The key point in this response is 14 November 2008. The proposal for Columbus Center was before that thus this development project was not subjugated to the regulation when under review. In other words, UFP regulation is not a matter that CC had to address.

Ned Flaherty

06-06-2009, 12:21 PM

The key point in this response is 14 November 2008. The proposal for Columbus Center was before that thus this development project was not subjugated to the regulation when under review. In other words, UFP regulation is not a matter that CC had to address.

Yes, Columbus Center was first proposed in 1996, and yes, the partially approved proposal omitted UFPs from its Final Environmental Impact Report published over 6 years ago.

But the state never issued permission to build either the buildings above, or the tunnels below, for the reasons that I previously listed._ Consequently, the state’s 2003 environmental Certificate expired because the owners failed to accomplish major steps, and failed to accomplish them in a continuous sequence.

California might request a new Certificate to replace the expired one, or might file a new proposal altogether, but either way, when that time comes, the latest criteria will be applied by a growing list of city, state, and federal agencies, including MSTA, EOT, EOE&EA, H&HS, DPH, DEP, BPHC, EPA, and so on.

Ned Flaherty

06-06-2009, 01:56 PM

. . . your persistent claim of thousands of studies on UFPs is hokum. . .

You often write “thousands of UFP studies” but that is your claim, not mine.

The National Library of Medicine has thousands of scientific studies on particulate matter, and many studies on ultrafine particulate matter, most added since 1996 (when Columbus Center was first proposed).

Once again, my claims are that:

1. The existing research, on coarse, fine, and ultrafine matter shows that rates of birth defects, incurable illness, and early mortality all are aggravated by building offices and homes immediately over near-source pollution, as the owners propose to do.

2. Capturing, concentrating, and venting that pollution into the adjacent community is the full opposite of what the developers testified they would do, which was build “hermetically sealed” [airtight] tunnels that would cleanse the community’s air, not worsen it.

. . . Columbus Center can't effectively address a pollutant straw man; against what UFP standard does one gauge effect? . . .

There are many standards against which results can be measured. Here are two.
● First, the “do-no-harm” standard: do not increase exposure for people working or living along the corridor.
● Second, the standard promised by California during testimony to Boston City Council: the tunnels have “hermetically sealed” (air-tight) tunnels which cleanse the community’s air space.

If you feel that the second standard is dishonest, or impractical, or expensive, do not argue with me, because it was the project owners’ proposal, not mine._ If building what they proposed is inconvenient or impossible, then they need to either file a new proposal, or else return the state income taxes and the 19 years of city property taxes that were waived based on the promise of “hermetically sealed” (air-tight) tunnels.

. . . what percentage of UFP emissions do you think will be abated as a consequence of further controls of fine particulates? . . .

EPA began deliberating what to do on 24 February 2009, after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared current EPA regulatory levels inadequate._ I do not know what EPA will decide._ But updated federal regulations are imminent.

. . . The studies and the strategies are concentrated in southern California. You persist in asserting that what's good for Covina is good for Clarendon St.

Particulate matter — and especially ultrafine particulate matter — causes fundamental damage to human bodies that been measured and studied in many climates worldwide._ While geography and climate lead to tiny differences in various individuals, the overall public health risks — birth defects, incurable illness (heart disease, lung disease, cancer), and premature mortality — remain consistent._ So, yes, reductions of ultrafine particulate matter are beneficial in climates both similar to and different from Boston’s climate.

As expected, cities with the biggest improvements in air quality also are seeing the biggest improvements in life expectancy, even a city like Boston, which has relatively clean air and generally good health care._ The U.S. Office of Budget and Management has shown that the public health benefits of controlling fine particle pollution vastly outweigh the costs._ See “Clean Air, Longer Life” by Douglas Dockery, Harvard Magazine, 15 April 2009 at www.HSPH.Harvard.edu/faculty/douglas-dockery.

The damage from ultrafine particles is greater than from fine particles, so the cost-benefit ratio for controlling ultrafine exposure is even better than the cost-benefit ratio for controlling fine particles.

bbfen

06-06-2009, 02:12 PM

MTA has no schedule or plan for resuming any air rights development work.

IMG

Congratulations, you obstructionist-isolationist. While I in no way credit you with anything more than being an hysterical, annoying gnat, the outcome is as you desired: no construction.

Kindly now shut your piehole and know when to walk away.

Ned Flaherty

06-07-2009, 02:03 PM

. . . the outcome is as you desired: no construction . . .

No, BBFen, you must be thinking of someone else, and may be in the wrong thread altogether.

For 16 years, I have advocated to tunnel the entire corridor below, and develop it above._ I never advocated, here or anywhere, for “no construction” as you wrote.

I have always promoted responsible development, by screened developers, with competitive bids, that honor the Turnpike Master Plan, after financial disclosure, without adding environmental hazards or public health risks.

But all proposals to do so were refused via an illegal, no-bid deal struck between the current developer and a former Turnpike Chairman who was later found guilty of fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Everyone who regrets 14 years of “no construction” — as I do — should take up their complaints with the developers — as I did — because they are the ones who never got the approvals, designs, insurance, investors, and funding needed to start construction.

. . . know when to walk away.

It is unlikely that any citizen will walk away now. Having defaulted on the lease over 3 years ago, this developer’s pending eviction is actually the brightest spot in this whole, 14-year travesty.

Once this tenant is gone, the MSTA can seek competitive bids from screened developers who respect the Master Plan, financial disclosure, and the environment.

Provided that politicians do not sell control over the outcome to the developer (as they did in 1996 and 2000), and provided that developers do not submit fraudulent subsidy applications, then the next public process can be easier, faster, and end with a proposal that actually gets built.

Ned Flaherty

06-07-2009, 02:07 PM

Developers Say “Nobody Home” At Turnpike Real Estate Division

By Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer Paul McMorrow • June 4, 2009

Chaos and understaffing at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has left at least two major Boston development initiatives stuck in the mud, sources tell Banker & Tradesman, as crushing debt, political infighting and a personnel exodus have caused the agency to suspend virtually all major real estate decisions.

"They're in complete turmoil," said one development source. "There's nobody home."

"Nothing is happening at all," said another, complaining that development bids from Faneuil Hall to the Back Bay have ground to a halt. "They don't have anybody in place. Nobody's in there to make things move."

In the span of one week in early May, the Pike laid off its chief development officer and most of its real estate support staff, and saw its executive director resign amid a firestorm of criticism. Since then, many in Boston's development community complain they've heard nothing but silence from the agency.

In mid-January, the agency announced a dramatic plan to sell off its 11 roadside service plazas. The four bidders chasing those properties are still waiting for word of their fate.

In announcing the service plaza sale, transportation secretary James Aloisi pledged to move quickly to "dismantle" the Pike. He said that, as a manifestation of that commitment, he would dispose of the plazas "in a matter of a couple months," adding, ""We want it expedited. We don't want it to linger."

That haste seems to have waned. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently told Banker & Tradesman that Aloisi informed him that all major real estate decisions are on hold. Aloisi told Menino that the Pike wouldn't be pulling the trigger on any major real estate leases or designations until Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature come to an agreement on the troubled agency's future.

"They're going through a reorganization," Menino said, referring to the transportation consolidation bill that's currently stalled in a legislative conference committee. "Once it's completed, they'll move forward. Jim Aloisi said to me, ‘Why start the [development] process and not finish it up?'"

An Aloisi spokesman denied that account, saying, "Nothing is on hold."

Other Mass. Delays

The Pike had also been expected to tap a developer for a long-vacant parcel along the Rose Kennedy Greenway in mid-April; a long-delayed request for proposals on the parcel finally went out last October, and bidders are still waiting for the Pike to name a winner.

Bids on a series of Pike air rights parcels in the Back Bay were delivered to the agency in early December, and over the past six months, the development process for those properties has gone no further.

"I'm hearing [the air rights development] is stalled," said city council president Michael Ross. "It's unfortunate. If done correctly, air rights development has the potential to reconnect neighborhoods and bring vitality to otherwise-dead spots. Good planning takes place during a down economy. We should be preparing today for Boston to come out of this. If we don't use this time wisely, other cities will, and we will lose."

In the wake of May's mass layoffs, the Pike is operating with a skeletal real estate staff. All operations are being funneled into the Executive Office of Transportation, which is also handling all real estate planning for MassHighway and the MBTA.

The planned consolidation of the Pike, MassHighway and the T has been hampered, though, by bitter conflict between Aloisi, Patrick, and Senate President Therese Murray. Aloisi has repeatedly thrown barbs Murray's way, and the Senate president has reciprocated by savaging Aloisi and his boss in the press.

Murray and the governor are also warring over how to pay for the state's overwhelming transportation bills. Patrick has pushed a 19-cent gas tax increase, which the House and Senate rejected in favor of a 25-percent sales tax hike. The governor promptly threatened to veto that hike, raising the prospect of massive Pike toll increases this summer. A failure to resolve the impasse will likely junk the Pike's bond rating and trigger costly swaption contracts.

The calendar is also working against the reorganization that Aloisi is reportedly subjugating his real estate processes to. On Beacon Hill, legislators traditionally devote nearly all of their springtime work hours to passing a budget before retiring from the Hill for the summer. The current legislative session has been marked by fewer formal sessions and poorer committee attendance than usual, and those two trends don't bode well for the prospect of conference committees working overtime.

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news133226.html

Wocket

06-10-2009, 11:45 AM

But the state never issued permission to build either the buildings above, or the tunnels below, for the reasons that I previously listed._

But the approval process started, and by following your own logic starting the approval process = approval.

TheRifleman

06-10-2009, 01:14 PM

This would be the best headlines in BOSTON of 09.........Mass Turnpike Blows up and does not exsist anymore. No more TOLLS

Ned Flaherty

06-11-2009, 03:13 PM

But the approval process started, and by following your own logic starting the approval process = approval.

No._ That’s not my logic._ I never said that merely starting an approval process is the same thing as ending it successfully._ For example, 8 public subsidies are still being sought, their review/approval processes never finished, and those subsidies were never issued.

If you re-read the 3,400-page lease, you’ll see that there are at least 36 required approvals._ If you re-read the newspaper articles since 2005, you’ll also see that at the time that California defaulted on the lease over 3 years ago, 75% of those approvals had yet to be obtained._ And, in addition to those 27 approvals, at least 3 major new ones have arisen since:

• Commonwealth approval of $295 million in performance bonds
• Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the original “deck-based” tunnel design
• Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the new “platform-based” tunnel design

Last September, an attorney representing the California owners announced that he’d replaced the original “deck-based” tunnel designs with cheaper, faster, less durable “platform-based” tunnel designs that he said would save the project from financial failure._ Nearly one year later, it’s clear that the new design did not provide any of that financial momentum._ Moreover, the “platform-based” tunnel designs have yet to be (a) drawn, (b) submitted, and (c) signed off by the Commonwealth’s sworn, independent, quality-control engineers.

In summary, many approvals have yet to be given, and regardless of how far along in review they may or may not be, only after a review process is completed successfully can an approval be considered given.

KentXie

06-11-2009, 06:05 PM

No._ That’s not my logic._ I never said that merely starting an approval process is the same thing as ending it successfully._ For example, 8 public subsidies are still being sought, their review/approval processes never finished, and those subsidies were never issued.

If you re-read the 3,400-page lease, you’ll see that there are at least 36 required approvals._ If you re-read the newspaper articles since 2005, you’ll also see that at the time that California defaulted on the lease over 3 years ago, 75% of those approvals had yet to be obtained._ And, in addition to those 27 approvals, at least 3 major new ones have arisen since:

• Commonwealth approval of $295 million in performance bonds
• Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the original “deck-based” tunnel design
• Commonwealth approval from sworn, independent, quality-control engineers for the new “platform-based” tunnel design

Last September, an attorney representing the California owners announced that he’d replaced the original “deck-based” tunnel designs with cheaper, faster, less durable “platform-based” tunnel designs that he said would save the project from financial failure._ Nearly one year later, it’s clear that the new design did not provide any of that financial momentum._ Moreover, the “platform-based” tunnel designs have yet to be (a) drawn, (b) submitted, and (c) signed off by the Commonwealth’s sworn, independent, quality-control engineers.

In summary, many approvals have yet to be given, and regardless of how far along in review they may or may not be, only after a review process is completed successfully can an approval be considered given.
He's talking about how you said "'Starting to be regulated' means a process has already begun being regulated" in an earlier post. Thus by your logic he is saying, starting the approval process means it is approved.

tobyjug

06-12-2009, 02:48 PM

Calling Mr. Flaherty. You are wanted on the International Hotel thread!

Ned Flaherty

06-12-2009, 03:47 PM

He's talking about how you said "'Starting to be regulated' means a process has already begun being regulated" in an earlier post. Thus by your logic he is saying, starting the approval process means it is approved.

Thanks for the clarification.

But my logic applies the same way in both situations.

“Starting to be regulated” means a toxin is partially — but not fully — regulated.
“Partially approved” means a proposal is partially — but not fully — approved.

There is some regulation, just as there is some approval, but the toxin needs more regulation, just as the proposal needs more approval.

jass

06-16-2009, 11:01 AM

Ned Flaherty

06-16-2009, 12:03 PM

. . . By the time this is built, shouldnt we expect that a decent portion of the cars on the highway will be partially or fully electric, thus causing the particle effect to be a mute issue?

Once all-electric transportation is achieved, the issue will be moot, not mute.

Note the project’s 30-year time line._ Columbus Center was proposed in 1996, and the latest agreement negotiated with the Turnpike Authority requires grand opening by 2026._ But the developers spent the last 1.5 years begging for additional time beyond that._ Turnpike officials have granted every delay the developers requested over the last 14 years._ Given that history, it’s clear that the next agreed upon completion date could easily be 2030, or even later.

Note, too, that fundamental societal changes like converting to all-electric transportation invariably carry a complex set of financial, political, cultural, technical, and natural factors that affect each other, and that complicate the scheduling._ So while the conversion to electric cars is already underway, there’s no fixed timetable by which anyone can say when it will finish, and the separate timetables for trucks, buses, and diesel trains will all be different.

Since particulate matter air pollution is expected to continue indefinitely, mitigation for it needs to continue for approximately the same period.

pelhamhall

06-16-2009, 12:26 PM

I'm still dying for Beal to release his re-design. Very curious and excited.

I really can't wait for the capital markets to soften so that this approved project can get back under construction!

What were we arguing about again?

Oh right, nothing.

Ned Flaherty

06-16-2009, 02:45 PM

. . . this approved project . . .

When re-reading the public records, note that among the many approvals never given are these:

• state approvals of 5 new leases to replace the defaulted ones
• state approvals of new tunnel designs
• state approvals of performance bonds for $295 million
• city approvals to erect buildings
• agency approvals of subsidies previously disapproved
• lender approvals of construction loans

There are serious reasons that each approval was never given._ When a developer is unable to produce the property, plans, bonds, permits, and financing — especially after 14 years of trying — treating a project as categorically “approved” is naïve.

TetOff

06-16-2009, 02:46 PM

Once all-electric transportation is achieved, the issue will be moot, not mute.

Actually, Ned, since you choose to be a pedant, I must point out that it won't be moot either:
moot |moōt|
adjective
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision : whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point.

• having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision : it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.

verb [ trans. ] (usu. be mooted)
raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility) : Sylvia needed a vacation, and a trip to Ireland had been mooted.

KentXie

06-16-2009, 03:33 PM

Re: Dirty air stuff

By the time this is built, shouldnt we expect that a decent portion of the cars on the highway will be partially or fully electric, thus causing the particle effect to be a mute issue?

If only the government can curb the usage of gasoline car like they do with smoking. It would take almost not time to convert most car to electric if that happens, or other source of energy.

Justin7

06-16-2009, 05:14 PM

gastaxgastaxgastaxgastax

Ned Flaherty

06-17-2009, 08:18 AM

Actually, . . . it won't be moot either . . .

Yes, “moot” does mean “subject to debate.”

The issue that will become moot several decades hence is what level of environmental constraints should have been imposed on a proposal, 30 years before it got built (when the completion date was unknown), decades before particulate matter air pollution was eradicated (when that date was also unknown).

The issue will become moot because after defining multiple scenarios — the one that occurred and the others that didn’t — and then comparing the profits made from lives lost versus the costs of lives saved — nothing will change, because it will all be occurring after the fact, when the outcome can’t be altered.

Whenever that moot argument occurs . . .

■ I will still argue that environmental constraints were justified and necessitated because they reduced birth defects, incurable illness (lung disease, heart disease, cancer), and premature death for people who worked or lived above the rail/road corridor.

■ Others will argue that perhaps some mitigation should have saved some lives (and not others), but that the full solution — building un-filtered buildings elsewhere or building filtered tunnels over the corridor — would have had a higher cost-per-life-saved than the owners wanted to pay for.

■ Apologists for the real estate development industry will still argue that the structures were not yet illegal when first proposed in 1996, even though they became illegal by the time they were finished in 2026, and that the structures where their customers got sick — and died sooner — were profitable.

tommym96

06-17-2009, 07:28 PM

I've never read a more tired thread. Ned, I admire your will to keep debating such a ridiculous argument that is going nowhere and has gone nowhere in months.

Ned Flaherty

06-17-2009, 10:23 PM

I've never read a more tired thread. Ned, I admire your will to keep debating such a ridiculous argument that is going nowhere and has gone nowhere in months.

You’ve gotten the thread, the issues, and the project all mixed up._ They’re 3 different things.

The Thread • The variety of different posters, the quantity of posts, and the total number of visitors and viewers all show that this thread is one of the most popular and active ones._ So the thread isn’t “tired” at all._ What did get tired out, though, were those members who were so overly focused on start-of-construction that for them everything else went pale.

The Issues • Closer inspection of the public records shows that the points which I argue are continuing to be evolve under attention from lots of people other than me._ And as Boston’s longest running urban planning failure ever, this proposal will remain a great textbook case study for years to come, because people learn far more from difficult failure than they do from easy success._ So it’s not the issues which are “going nowhere.”

The Project • What is going nowhere is the project since the BRA approved it — 6 years ago._ It’s natural for anyone who is obsessed with start-of-construction — or who equates a “project” with “construction” — to get discouraged reading this thread._ There are more interesting issues covered here, but if they don’t interest you, then the easiest way for you to avoid the fatigue is to just stop reading.

Articles slated for the near future are definitely newsworthy, though probably of no value to people who mainly want to know “When can I watch it start?” or “When will a foreman call me?”

I’m not criticizing those whose main interest happens to be construction start-up, it’s just that this really isn’t the best thread for reading about that.

Ned Flaherty

06-18-2009, 02:23 AM

State pushes a wave of construction

Public outlays could spur private projects

By Casey Ross • Globe Staff • June 18, 2009

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration will spend hundreds of millions of dollars this summer building roads and highway ramps for at least five struggling private developments - from the former Naval air station in Weymouth to Somerville’s Assembly Square - in hopes of jump-starting construction and the local economy.

The money, a combination of federal stimulus money and state funds, will not go directly to the private developers, but rather for public works that Patrick aides said they expect will make it easier for companies to arrange financing in otherwise tight credit markets. That, in turn, would kick off construction of the planned office parks, shopping centers, housing, and hotels that will create new jobs.

Although more projects may be chosen later, the ones already approved include not only SouthField in Weymouth and Assembly Square, but a new business park in Fall River that will recruit biotech companies, the Westwood Station project, and Waterfront Square at Revere Beach.

The state’s immediate goal is to start work in the current construction season, with the first five projects receiving $20 million to $60 million in public works improvements. Patrick officials expect to officially announce the funding commitments over the coming weeks.

“The projects we will be announcing will change the way we grow and develop over the next 10 years,’’ said Gregory Bialecki, the Massachusetts secretary of housing and economic development. “What we’re trying to do is create the places that will be our new employment centers.’’

The federal funds will come out of an $800 million allotment for transportation projects Massachusetts received from the stimulus package.

Initially the Patrick administration used some of that federal money for simple projects such as road paving. But it now wants to target improvements that have the ancillary benefit of creating additional economic growth.

“Now, we’re able to look over the horizon and go after the big picture things we’re trying to do,’’ Bialecki said.

In Somerville, Mayor Joseph Curtatone called the selection of the Assembly Square project a major benefit for his city, which like many communities is struggling to fund public services with less money.

“This project will do a lot to stabilize our future,’’ Curtatone said of the proposed development. “It will allow us to invest in education, public works and public safety. It’s the most important project in the city.’’

The state is still sorting through the list of projects that have applied for public aid, and more may be added in the coming months.

But Bialecki indicated several high-profile stalled developments have needs the state cannot accommodate.

One is Columbus Center, an $800 million condominium, hotel, and retail project over the turnpike in Boston that has been unable to arrange private financing.

Another request that is too large to fill came from Gale International and Vornado Realty Trust, developers of the Filene’s block in Downtown Crossing, which Bialecki said were looking for as much as $300 million in assistance.

Neither set of developers returned calls seeking comment.

In downturns in the early 1990s and 2001, Massachusetts lagged the national economy in its recovery, taking months longer to restore jobs and production lost during the contraction.

The new spending initiative is an attempt to reverse that trend, although it is unclear just how quickly some of these private developments can get underway and contribute to the economy.

The five projects chosen so far are all ambitious:

■ The Assembly Square project in Somerville includes retail stores such as Ikea, office buildings, and more than 2,000 residential units.

■ The former South Weymouth Naval Air Station would become SouthField, a minicity with more than 2,800 housing units, golf course, stores, offices, and movie studios. State officials are arranging financing to build an access road that would connect the development with routes 3 and 18 and cost about $60 million.

■ At Waterfront Square at Revere Beach, Eurovest Development is planning to build a $500 million mixed use project that would include more than 900 housing units, a hotel, and 200,000 square feet of stores, restaurants, and offices. The state is considering upgrades to the MBTA’s Wonderland Station as well as the network of roads around it.

■ For Fall River, the state will build an off-ramp from Route 24 that would allow officials to add new space next to the city’s 500-acre Industrial Park for biotech companies.

■ The $1.5 billion Westwood Station project includes hundreds of housing units, retail stores, and offices on a large site opposite the Route 128 Amtrak station. The developers want help building a new highway interchange at interstates 95 and 93 that would improve traffic flow around the project, which is projected to create about 3,700 construction jobs and as many as 9,000 permanent jobs.

“We have one or two critical tenants that are still waiting to see what happens with the road system. And if these commitments come through, we can get financing to move the project forward soon,’’ said Jay Doherty, chief executive of developer Cabot, Cabot & Forbes.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/06/18/five_projects_targeted_for_stimulus_aid/?page=full

Ned Flaherty

06-18-2009, 03:24 AM

Turnpike's Development Blunders Boggling

Banker & Tradesman • By Columnist Scott Van Voorhis • June 15, 2009

-----From the folks that gave us the Big Dig, here’s another costly screw up: the $500 million airrights fiasco.
-----That was the Massachusetts Turnpike’s estimate more than a decade ago of what it could reap from the development of the air-rights over the highway’s Boston span, which slices through such real estate hot spots as the Back Bay and Fenway.
-----But pretty much nothing got built, leaving the rest of us across the state to bail out the floundering state authority, drowning in billions in Big Dig debt, with ever-higher tolls.
-----The city of Boston came out of this empty handed as well, losing out on the potential for tens of millions in new taxes from millions of square feet of new air-rights development that never materialized.

All The Wrong Moves

-----The story of what went wrong is a case study in state bureaucratic arrogance and a penchant for making all the wrong real estate moves – over and over again.
-----But if that were not bad enough, the embattled Turnpike, after laying off its real estate chief and his assistant for good measure, appears determined to pursue a downsized version of its already discredited air-rights development strategy.
-----It’s time to apply a little common sense to this government orchestrated-mess.
-----“There really was no coordinated methodical strategy for these sites,” notes David Begelfer, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts. “It was back-ended. They figured, ‘We need money. This is one way to get it.’”
-----James Kerasiotes, the Turnpike and Big Dig czar who got dumped in 2000 after, among other things, calling the head of another state agency a “reptile” in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, was sure one abrasive guy.
-----But one thing Kerasiotes got right was his belief that the air-rights over the highway’s Boston span were a potential gold mine. Now it’s a fair question whether Kerasiotes was padding the numbers here a bit – the $500 million was based on 14 million square feet of new development.
-----Yet even two thirds of that – $300 million – would make a big difference right now.
-----The same is true for all the potential tax revenue that cash-strapped Boston never saw.
-----Just take Columbus Center, local housing developer Arthur Winn’s ill-fated plan to build a condo and hotel high-rise complex on a deck over the Turnpike near the Hancock Tower.
-----That project, which has been delayed for years and may now never happen, has the potential to produce a cool $4 million to $5 million a year in new city taxes. That’s a lot of teachers and firefighters. It’s still a lot even after you subtract for a planned tax break to spur construction.
-----But the Turnpike managed to take what should have been a home run for its own troubled balance sheet and for the city of Boston and run it into the ground.
-----The setbacks have been so thorough as to discredit the idea of air-rights development in a city that boasts a pair of landmark projects built over this very same highway, the Prudential Center and Copley Place.

No One To Take The Call

-----But possibly the Turnpike’s biggest problem has been its unwillingness to devote the kind of attention – and resources – needed to oversee the development of millions of square feet of new development.
-----The cash strapped authority, until recently, delegated the brunt of this monumental task to a single real estate executive, his assistant and two other staffers. (The director and his assistant, half the department, were recently let go).
-----Unable to handle this massive workload, the Turnpike’s harried real estate duo were constantly juggling different projects – and too often making the wrong choices.
-----Back when housing was hot, the state authority strung along an array of developers eager to bid on Turnpike-controlled sites near North Station.
-----Instead, then-Turnpike chief Matt Amorello rolled out a ludicrous plan to build one of Boston’s tallest office towers at South Bay.
Amorello had dreams of netting as much as $200 million for a mix of land- and air-rights parcels near the highway interchange off Kneeland Street by South Station.
-----The lucky bidder, as the Turnpike’s pitch went, would then have a shot at building one of the city’s tallest towers and a new, multibillion-dollar neighborhood.
-----There were a couple tiny little problems with this, though. One was the smokestack bedecked steam plant that overshadows the site. The second was the Turnpike’s insistence of a big, upfront cash payment for a development site that could take years – or decades – to build out.
-----Begelfer, the NAIOP Massachusetts chief, remembers trying to talk some sense into the Turnpike crew. He urged the authority to focus on its parcels near North Station where there was lively interest from potential bidders – to no avail.
-----“Their response was, ‘We are doing just fine,’” Begelfer recalls.
-----The Turnpike ended up with just one bidder, a local builder who amazingly had never attempted a major high-rise, let alone a multibillion-dollar mega-development.

Did Someone Say ‘Change’?

-----Amorello is long gone, of course.
-----And there are even some hopeful signs that change may be on the way.
-----The Patrick administration has just delegated Peter O’Connor, a deputy secretary for real estate and economic development at the Executive Office of Transportation, to help revive the Turnpike’s faltering air-rights.
-----“I agree with you completely,” O’Connor said of my assessment of the Turnpike’s dismal history in the air-rights business. “The way I put it, you guys have deals papered from the Zakim Bridge to Brighton, but no one has built anything. Clearly, whatever construct you were using didn’t work.”
-----Amen to that.
-----Still, there’s also a danger of history repeating itself as harried state officials like O’Connor are forced to play triage and decide which projects to spend time on, and which to put on the back burner.
-----Just look at the mixed signals being given to a group of deep-pocketed developers, a who’s who of Boston real estate dealmakers, who are lobbying for the chance to bid on a series of air-rights parcels not far from the Hynes Convention Center in the Back Bay.
-----O’Connor says he plans to meet with these developers, who submitted bids in December, and evaluate whether they are still interested. He holds out the option of a six month breather.
-----Maybe it will all work out – O’Connor has a long background in state and city economic development and it certainly does not hurt to have a fresh set of eyes assessing the air-rights development mess.
-----However, maybe it’s time to take a walk on the wild side here, and remove an embattled and nearly bankrupt state authority from a job that is clearly way over its head.

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/news133353.html

tommym96

06-24-2009, 06:18 PM

You’ve gotten the thread, the issues, and the project all mixed up._ They’re 3 different things.

The Thread • The variety of different posters, the quantity of posts, and the total number of visitors and viewers all show that this thread is one of the most popular and active ones._ So the thread isn’t “tired” at all._ What did get tired out, though, were those members who were so overly focused on start-of-construction that for them everything else went pale.

The Issues • Closer inspection of the public records shows that the points which I argue are continuing to be evolve under attention from lots of people other than me._ And as Boston’s longest running urban planning failure ever, this proposal will remain a great textbook case study for years to come, because people learn far more from difficult failure than they do from easy success._ So it’s not the issues which are “going nowhere.”

The Project • What is going nowhere is the project since the BRA approved it — 6 years ago._ It’s natural for anyone who is obsessed with start-of-construction — or who equates a “project” with “construction” — to get discouraged reading this thread._ There are more interesting issues covered here, but if they don’t interest you, then the easiest way for you to avoid the fatigue is to just stop reading.

Articles slated for the near future are definitely newsworthy, though probably of no value to people who mainly want to know “When can I watch it start?” or “When will a foreman call me?”

I’m not criticizing those whose main interest happens to be construction start-up, it’s just that this really isn’t the best thread for reading about that.

Thanks for the breakdown. When I said the thread was tired I meant the content within as well as the actual subject.

Ned Flaherty

06-25-2009, 07:12 AM

Columbus Center support vs. new bids

South End News • 25 June 2009

Columbus Center support
For two years I have been reading comments by Ned Flaherty in regards to Columbus Center. For some reason, Mr. Flaherty decided to become the de facto spokesperson for all who live around Columbus Center. He does not speak for me.

Mr. Flaherty states the "Columbus Center is opposed by adjacent communities." I would like to make it clear that is indeed not the case. As a resident of Cortes St. directly across from the largest parcel of the project and perhaps most affected by any construction, I am totally in support of this project. In addition, most all that I have spoken to in Bay Village are in favor.

Mr. Flaherty also implies that $79 million has been given to the project from the city and state. If that was the case this project may have gone forward a long time ago. This project is just the type that should be receiving support to stimulate our local economy. It will create potentially thousands of jobs in construction and would certainly appear to be shovel-ready. The resulting completion connecting the Back Bay, Bay Village and the South End while covering the Mass. Pike. will improve the quality of life for all neighborhoods.

The trees are torn down, the grassy knoll is now a big pit and several million dollars of support are already placed in the ground. It is time for the city and state to step forward and assist in getting this project moving forward. Whatever past negative feelings towards the developer or politicians need to be put beahind us. Nothing ever gets accomplished by continuing to point fingers. Now more than ever, someone needs to step forward and make Columbus Center a reality.

Artie Rice
Cortes Street

Open the Columbus Center parcels to new bids
The community lost 24 mature trees from Cortes Street when workers for the Columbus Center proposal chopped them down in 2007.

A few Cortes Street residents still think the fastest way to get their street restored is to keep waiting for someone to build the now defunct project. They’re wrong, for two reasons.

First, the latest proposal includes a 30-year calendar that lets the owners finish as late as 2026. That schedule allows tunnel construction 2010 - 2011; all construction stalled again 2013 - 2023; and skyscraper/garage construction 2024 - 2025. This 10-year delay was reported over one year ago ("Another delay for Columbus Center," South End News, June 5, 2008).

Second, the Columbus Center project is insolvent: the current owners (California pension plan) stopped funding it in September 2007, the former owners (Winn Development) ran out of cash in February 2008, state government rescinded the public subsidies in April 2008, and no commercial bank ever issued a construction loan.

The fastest way to get this property developed — and the surrounding streets restored — is for the state to declare the current owners in default, evict them, and then get qualified developers to submit competitive bids, with full financial disclosure, that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan. State Representative Martha Walz recommended this over one year ago ("State pulls $10m slated for Columbus Center," Boston Globe, April 8, 2008).

That would fix Cortes Street for free, and a lot sooner than 2025.

Elissa Pogorski
St. Charles Street

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=letters&sc2=news&sc3=&id=92932

KentXie

07-02-2009, 01:14 AM

Developers of Pike site told to act
Show Columbus Center will be built, or remove staging, state officials say

By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | July 2, 2009

The Patrick administration has ordered developers of the $800 million Columbus Center project to either move forward with construction or spend millions of dollars to remove staging at the site - an ultimatum that could be a death knell for the foundering Boston development.

State officials expect the developers, the real estate arm of the California state pension fund and Boston-based Winn Cos., to remove barriers and take other steps to clean up the Back Bay work zone within several months, but officials also hint they will remove the team if it doesn’t soon produce proof it can build the massive project.

“At some point we need to call the question and say, is this really going to happen?’’ said Jeffrey Mullan, executive director of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which has leased the site to the developers.

He did not give a deadline, but said the state cannot wait indefinitely while valuable property lies fallow, depriving taxpayers of millions in potential revenue and inconveniencing pedestrians, commuters, and nearby residents.

The state’s demand to restore the property puts Columbus Center on even shakier legs, as it adds millions of dollars in costs to a project that already cannot go forward for lack of funding.

The development team also includes the Beal Cos. and the Related Cos., which were brought in last September to see if they could devise a way to make the project viable.

In a statement yesterday, the team said it had no plans to bow out. “We continue to work diligently to develop a viable strategy to move this important project forward,’’ the statement said. “We are best positioned to make this happen given our expertise and investments in the site.’’

The statement said the developers are talking with city and state officials about further restoration of the site.

Given the weakness of the housing market and of the general consumer economy - as well as the difficulty of raising money to fund real estate construction - specialists said the prospects for a complex that includes condominiums, a hotel, and retail outlets are not promising. Developers will have to spend tens of millions of dollars to build a platform across the turnpike just to support the 35-story tower and other buildings that are planned between Arlington and Clarendon streets.

“It’s a visionary project, but it also carries construction costs that are very difficult to sustain in the current economic setting,’’ said Richard Gollis, principal of Concord Group, a real estate advisory firm.

Conceived in 1996, Columbus Center was supposed to show that large-scale developments built over the highway would generate jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenues. But the project has suffered a series of setbacks and management changes. After finally breaking ground in late 2007, the developers halted construction a few months later when the economic downturn prevented them from lining up enough financing to continue. They were then required to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on interim repairs to clean the site, fix fencing, and remove parking obstructions.

So far, the second look undertaken by the Beal-Related Cos. venture has produced little public progress, and the team has otherwise kept a low profile.

Mullan said the state cannot wait any longer. He said the developers must restore the site to its original state or they will be in violation of their agreement with the Turnpike Authority.

Construction barriers near the Arlington Street onramp make it difficult for trucks and snowplows to navigate. State and Boston officials also want the developers to stabilize a slope along the ramp and remove unsightly construction fencing along city streets.

The Turnpike Authority could take the developers to court to enforce this demand. But Mullan acknowledged that the lease does not require the developers to post a bond or make other payments if they are unable to do the work themselves.

As for the more fundamental question of whether Columbus Center will ever be built, that remains uncertain, Mullan said. But, he added, the state will move to find new developers if officials don’t see progress in the next couple of years.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/07/02/state_issues_ultimatum_to_columbus_center_develope rs?mode=PF

Ned Flaherty

07-11-2009, 11:03 AM

Pike’s pushing cleanup of Columbus Center site

By Thomas Grillo • July 11, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/cleanup2009-01.jpg
STAFF PHOTOS BY JOHN WILCOX

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/cleanup2009-02.jpg

Massachusetts Turnpike officials will meet with Columbus Center consultants next week to get a commitment to clean up the stalled construction site.

“We will have a list of potential safety, aesthetic and quality of life issues that need to be addressed,” said Peter O’Connor, the state’s deputy secretary for real estate. “I don’t know why the site has not been cleaned up yet.”

Columbus Center, the 1.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development to be built on a deck above the Massachusetts Turnpike was approved in 2003. MacFarlane Partners, the real estate arm of a California state pension fund, and Boston-based Winn Cos. broke ground in 2007 but work was halted several months later when the credit markets dried up and the state withdrew financial incentives.

Last fall, MacFarlane hired Beal Cos. of Boston and New York-based Related Properties as consultants to see if the $850 million project, in the works for 13 years, could be saved.

But the firms have not produced a promised report and have reneged on a pledge to remove construction staging and refurbish the site.

In April, Alan LeBovidge, the Pike’s former director, said he asked Beal to remove Jersey barriers along the Pike extension, but was told the developers needed more time.

Peter Spellios, Beal’s attorney, declined to comment. In an e-mail statement, a spokeswoman said, “We continue to discuss with the city of Boston and the Turnpike additional items that will further secure and restore the site.”

O’Connor will do a walk-through at the construction site with residents Monday at 7 p.m.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20090711pikes_pushing_cleanup_of_columbus_center_s ite/srvc=home&position=also

Ned Flaherty

07-16-2009, 01:03 PM

Columbus Center walk-through gives residents a chance to voice their concerns

South End News • By Bessie King • July 16, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/walk-through.jpg

New deputy secretary of real estate and economic development Peter O’Connor led a walk through of the Columbus Center project site on Monday evening. (Photo: Rick Friedman)

Since the beginning of construction at the proposed Columbus Center project site, residents of Cortes Street have had to deal with the nuisance of development noise and aesthetic decline caused by the work that was done. That work has long since ceased, leaving the site in limbo. On Monday, July 13 residents toured the site with John Romano, municipal affairs liaison at the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA), William Tuttle, director of real estate at the MTA, Peter O’Connor, deputy secretary of real state and economic development for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Aaron Michlewitz, the newly sworn-in 3rd Suffolk state rep.

Luis Gomes, a Cortes Street resident, said the construction has negatively altered the area.

“Before there used to be a park and it had trees as tall as our buildings,” said Gomes. “The trees would act as a barrier and break down the noise from the Turnpike but now we have nothing and these fences only take space and nobody sees what happens because they block the view. They should put the park back and put the trees back if they are not going to do anything else because this could last another three, five or more years.”

Organized by neighbor Lynn Andrews, the informal tour brought out approximately a dozen neighbors, who voiced their concerns and comments as they walked through the fenced and jersey barrier-filled section of Cortes Street, asking for improvements on cleaning and safety measures.

“This conversation is not about what is going to happen with the project, it’s actually about what is going to happen on our street because I’ve seen other streets, even Clarendon, that are cleaner and look much better than ours,” said Andrews.

During the meeting O’Connor, a South End resident, said he will do his best to get the Columbus Center project owners to clean up the area and better the conditions of the fences and barriers on the street. He also said, after being asked why the obstacles have not been removed completely, that they are there because construction will happen at some point since the city is not willing to give up on the project, “just yet.” Neighbors pointed to the trash that accumulates on the sidewalk where the fence is and images of mattresses that were left as trash against a jersey barrier by people who don’t live on the street, and even one image of a couch that was left during the night as trash on the fenced side of Cortes Street.

The lack of visibility is also affecting the driving situation, according to Fayette Street resident Susanne Wadsworth.

“People who are used to coming down the other side of the Turnpike make an illegal right turn on Arlington Street to turn on this island and go through Cortes Street, I don’t do that,” said Wadsworth. “I have to go around to make it to Berkeley and then over my street. Through the years that is a fair amount of gas and hassle and accidents that have occurred or almost did.”

Some residents on the side of Cortes and Berkeley Street are preoccupied with the increase of prostitution they have seen due to the fact that the fence in place blocks visibility across the Turnpike Bridge for police.

“We live on the side of Isabella Street and we see what is happening from our basement window and we call the police but it keeps going on,” said a female resident and mother of one who wished to remain anonymous.

An increase in car and bike burglary has also been noticed and in the past two weeks two cars have been keyed, according to Andrews and other residents. Although no promises or deadlines were given to residents on Monday night, O’Connor, who was appointed to his position two weeks ago, promised again to try his best and better the situation without discussing previous statements from the MTA or others.

“I want to know what the effect of this is on your way of life and see how we can work with the developer to improve this,” he said.

However, after such a long period of inaction, the South End’s new state rep. thinks it’s time for a new direction for the project.

“For not being on top of this during five months, due to the campaign and election period, and come back to see it in the same state I left it I feel truly disappointed,” said Michlewitz. “This has put a lot of communities in limbo for well over a year and with no movement I just think it’s time to reshuffle the deck and start looking for alternatives.”

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=93747

Ned Flaherty

07-16-2009, 01:06 PM

Do we need a Milena Del Valle tragedy to get the Columbus Center site cleaned?

South End News • By Co-Publisher Sue O’Connell • July 16, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/editorial.jpg
Not a pretty sight. (Photo: Rick Friedman)

It’s human nature. We joke about the sloppy construction of our Big Dig, or walk around the deteriorating Columbus Center construction site. We throw our hands up in the air in helplessness. Too much corruption to fix it-too little money, we say.

The Big Dig and Columbus Center have a lot in common. The biggest difference, however, is that one project was completed, and the other remains in unfinished limbo. The apathy toward the Big Dig resulted in the death of Milena Del Valle in July of 2006 when a concrete slab of a poorly constructed tunnel robbed her husband, Angel, of “the woman of [his] life,” as he told the Boston Globe. She had three adult children living in Costa Rica at the time of her death. Fortunately, the apathy toward the Columbus Center hasn’t resulted in death or injury-yet.

Why hasn’t the site been cleaned up? Perhaps because the Columbus Center occupies a site neither here (the South End) nor there (Back Bay); or maybe because it’s over the Mass Pike (theoretically); or maybe because there aren’t a lot of residents to keep watch. The Mass Pike, the city, our elected officials and the myriad developers and consultants of the project have managed to avoid cleaning the site and making it safe. The aesthetic and quality-of-life issues should be reason enough for all to act, but they haven’t. In new deputy secretary of real state and economic development Peter O’Connor’s walk-through on Monday night with a small number of community activists no guarantees or promises were made.

We’re told the city hasn’t given up on the project yet. Sure looks that way. In fact, two important figures, Mayor Thomas Menino and 3rd Suffolk State Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, have openly expressed their frustrations with the project’s failings.

So, what will it take? A bad car accident due to the poor visability around the site? An attack on one of the prostitutes who now frequent the area? A tragedy??

Contact Michlewitz, Menino, O’Connor, or even Governor Deval Patrick and ask how you can help. It might be the only way the site is ever restored.

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=editorial&sc2=news&sc3=&id=93754

type001

07-16-2009, 01:15 PM

Thank you for posting those hilarious articles. I was having a pretty sour day so far, but those articles cheered me up.

Too bad that none of the residents asked "Do you think this would have happened if we just let the development go as planned?".

pelhamhall

07-16-2009, 02:42 PM

If Beal had devised a viable plan, he would have released it by now.

My guess is that after much study it's quite obvious to everyone who's seen the books that nothing can be built here at a profit without government money. I'm sure they've studied mid-rise stumps, low-rise townhouses, everything... if there was a solution, they would have proudly offered it up by now at a press conference with lots of poltiical hand-shaking and mugging, and they would have been heroes to everyone.

This is probably not a viable development site. For anything.

Asking other developers to submit their own bids to go through their own process to determine the same conclusion is really funny and can only prove to be a fruitless (and costly) endeavor to the state. We aren't dealing with Mickey Mouse developers here, Beal/Related is a very successful and experienced team, so if they can't devise a plan that works, why should we assume some other developer magically can?

That being said, my guess is Beal ends his "study" with a "can't do anything" conclusion, and the entity that controls the site is kicked out without ever improving the site, and the residents in the area can wait around for the state to fix the site back up to its previous condition, some time around when the economy recovers after either 2012 or 2016 (depending on if this new Jimmy Carter gets re-elected or not)

Good luck to the residents in the area - a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

tobyjug

07-16-2009, 02:56 PM

The site ought to be cleaned up.

That being said, the article didn't layout any chain of potential causation that justifies the headline.

pelhamhall

07-16-2009, 02:58 PM

I'm not saying it shouldn't be - it's a travesty, and Winn should be personally ashamed. I'm just saying it probably ain't gonna happen for a long, long time. Who do you go after? Who do you blame?

tobyjug

07-16-2009, 03:14 PM

I'd go after whoever underwrote the performance bond, or in the (unacceptable) alternative, blame whoever waived a performance bond requirement.

bbfen

07-16-2009, 08:58 PM

I don't see how, even if Beal wanted to do anything now, that anything could be accomplished. Wasn't the development branch of the turnpike authority uncerimoniously detached from the MTA six weeks ago?

Ned Flaherty

07-20-2009, 01:33 PM

. . . Too bad that none of the residents asked "Do you think this would have happened if we just let the development go as planned?".

Actually, all 12 of the Cortes Street residents who wanted this event did “just let the development go as planned.”_ Virtually none of them participated in public meetings, or testified, or wrote comment letters, and the project just went ahead:_ the fences and trailers arrived in spring 2006, the owners halted funding in September 2007, Governor Patrick halted state subsidies in 2008, every lender who was asked to finance the project refused, and nothing was ever built.

The Columbus Center proposal has never been helped — or hampered — by Cortes Street residents._ Likewise, the halted construction isn’t causing car scrapes, car/bicycle burglary, near vehicle accidents, or prostitution, any more than completed construction would prevent such things.

Ned Flaherty

07-20-2009, 01:35 PM

. . . nothing can be built here at a profit without government money. . . . This is probably not a viable development site. For anything. . . . if they can't devise a plan that works, why should we assume some other developer magically can?

That’s all untrue._ These 7 acres are some of the most valuable unused urban land in the nation, and plenty can be built here, all without tax dollars._ No one’s seen any of those possibilities, because the property’s been tied up by Winn for 14 years.

When I met with Beal they confirmed that their mandate was to determine only whether the 2003 proposal could be finished, exactly as proposed — unchanged and unaltered. _ But that proposal depended upon hundreds of millions of public dollars that never materialized, and upon a claimed bank loan that never existed, and upon commercial lending criteria that the project never met._ So no, nothing proposed by California-CUIP-MURC-Winn-Beal-Related can be built here, but yes, other viable proposals are possible.

Ned Flaherty

07-20-2009, 01:42 PM

. . . Who do you go after? Who do you blame?
1st:_ the developer (California-CUIP-MURC-Winn).
2nd:_ Mayor Menino and his development staff, who approved everything that’s happened.
3rd:_ EOT / DOT / MTA officials, who approved everything that’s happened.

I'd go after whoever underwrote the performance bond, or in the(unacceptable) alternative, blame whoever waived a performance bond requirement.

It was EOT-DOT-MTA who let the developer launch “site preparation and pre-construction activity” in September 2007 without the $295 million performance bond.

Shortly after signing the lease in spring 2006, the developer demanded to re-negotiate it, and then dragged the process out for nearly 2 more years._ When re-negotiations finished in March 2008, California-CUIP-MURC-CWCC at the last minute refused to sign the amended lease, then refused to buy the bond, and then walked off the site.

Ned Flaherty

07-20-2009, 01:43 PM

. . . Wasn't the development branch of the turnpike authority uncerimoniously detached from the MTA six weeks ago?

No._ The former MTA employees who oversaw all I-90 development (Stephen Hines and Shirin Karanfiloglu) were laid off in April._ In June, Hines’ I-90 duties were transferred to EOT Deputy Secretary for Real Estate & Economic Development Peter O’Connor, and Karanfiloglu’s I-90 duties were transferred to MTA Real Estate Deputy Director Bill Tuttle.

pelhamhall

07-20-2009, 02:24 PM

When I met with Beal they confirmed that their mandate was to determine only whether the 2003 proposal could be finished, exactly as proposed — unchanged and unaltered.

Ned, first off thanks for the information in your previous posts.

Secondly, in reference to the above quote, that is indeed "the company line" but in my opinion (and I have no relation to this project whatsoever) the unusual nature of this business arrangement means something else is up.

Don't believe for one second that Beal doesn't have some tricks up his sleeve.

The failure of the Clarendon/One Back Bay doesn't bode well for getting this traffic trench covered anytime soon though.

tobyjug

07-20-2009, 07:57 PM

Ned, if I read you right, there was no performance bond before there was a physical disturbance of the site? I bet the designers and project managers in our audience are laughing at that one.

Leaders of a public authority who allow work on public property without a bond are incompetent. Hello...Inspector General?

bostonbred

07-21-2009, 11:06 AM

This story is full of problems because you dont know BOSTON HISTORY!!!

Boston is the home of RIGHTS. That is what they died for. And we must continue to do it. Air rRIGHTS. You see the key word here. Everyone has such rights, freedom to breath, freeedom to gather, freedom to VOTE. This is why Mr. Ned votes for freedom of breath..his RIGHT to air. And you should not poone him about his exercise.

Second. What is to be done?? It is all the fault of thet big ditch. And you CANNOT blame Mr. Ned for that or the neighbors because they DIDN'T DIG IT.

Next. Here is where MORE history comes to play. One of you smarter posters wrote cars are get cleaner and I say you are RIGHT (again you see the key word here.) Those hybrids and TotoyaPriaps so things are better in the air, carwise. It is the trains that stink.

So, you ask? What about HISTORY. You look at an old map of Boston and you don't see those train tracks there. Trains there there ARE NOT BOSTON HISTORY. You wouldn't see them in the GOLDEN AGE of the colonial times. BUT they werent there. They stopped out by the back of Back Bay and that was it. There was NO big ditch.

HERE is the SOLUTION to Mr. Ned: Get rid of those trains there and those poisonos fumes that KILL your brain. Build a new WEST STATION. Tracks in his neighborhood are for electric shuttles back and forth to SOUTH STATION and WEST STATION. I think of this aiport at Tampa when my family went to Bush Gardens and electric shuttle trains are there every couple of minutes between terminals .

THIS GIVES HIM AND THE OTHER GOOD CITIZENS their RIGHT TO BREATH jus5 liie in the Declaration of Independence!!! And you build your trophy HIGH RISEbut not kill him trophy too!!!

See. HISTORY in Boston is ALWAYS the answer.

Ned Flaherty

07-21-2009, 01:43 PM

. . . there was no performance bond before there was a physical disturbance of the site?

Correct._ Here’s what happened.

02 May 2006 • Landlord MTA and Tenant California (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC) signed a lease._ In Article 4.12(b), sub-sections (vi) and (vii) required California to deliver copies of MTA-approved payment-performance-lien bonds and MTA-approved insurance policies, and section (viii) required California to obtain 100% financing, including MTA-approved construction loans.

05 December 2006 • California purchased an insurance policy protecting California, but never bought performance bonds protecting MTA.

September 2007 • California halted its funding of the project.

October 2007 • To keep current investors, add new investors, and attract bankers, Winn Development rented construction equipment and hired temporary laborers using its own funds, and got MTA to approve only “site preparation and pre-construction activity.”_ MTA withheld approval to start construction of tunnels or buildings.

19 January 2008 • In closed session, the MTA Board of Directors approved an 855-page amendment to the 2,489-page lease, bringing the total to 3,344 pages._ The amendment included 3 requirements for a total of $295 million in bonds that would protect the MTA against defects, delays, or other difficulties caused by California.

20 March 2008 • The “site preparation and pre-construction activity” that began in October 2007 failed to attract any investors or bankers, and California asked MTA if buying performance bonds, amending the lease, getting financing, and resuming construction could be delayed until 20 September 2009.

30 November 2008 • California reached its 3rd default on the original May 2006 lease:_ (1) failing to get financing; (2) failing to start tunnel construction; and (3) failing to finish the tunnels by 30 November 2008.

5 February 2009 • Boston Globe reported Arthur Winn’s confirmation that all major decisions since 2006 were made by California.

24 April 2009 • MTA Executive Director Alan LeBovidge threatened litigation if California did not finish restoration of the site and remove the 392 Jersey barriers along the railways, highway, and city streets.

TheRifleman

07-21-2009, 01:48 PM

What a MESS

tobyjug

07-21-2009, 02:11 PM

Pathetic. They could have segmented the work, and segmented the bonds accordingly. As an oversimplified example:

Phase One- excavation in Cortes Street area to include removal of vegetation, subsurface exploration... Approximate cost to restore: $X
Phase One security- performance bond to the value of $X

The developer doesn't get upside down over the bond cost, the surety has a defined scope and a comfort level (with the prospect of limited liability) and most importantly, the public is protected.

Patriots_1228

07-21-2009, 07:53 PM

bostonbred

07-21-2009, 08:36 PM

Do you have to be Einstine or INDIANA JONES in the Temple of GLOOM to not see that Mr. Ned F. lives next to a BIG DITCH? WITH TRAINS IN IT? Or did the Perkins school not screne Trainspotting in FILM APPRECIATION CLASS???

And you say that freedom to BREATH is an aliens right only??? LOL. I am going to buy the Perrier oxygen bottle franchise to sell you air!!! Do you want to buy Tobins Bridge too?

DUDE YOU GET BOSTON HISTORY WRONG AND GIVE THE CREDTIT TO VIRGINIA!!! John ADams wrote the real bill of right uphere in the MASS CONSTITUTION THAT OTHERS COPIED. LOOK IT UPO!!!

AmericanFolkLegend

07-21-2009, 09:02 PM

Now let's just calm down for a second. There are plenty of capital letters and punctuation marks to go around.

bostonbred

07-21-2009, 09:23 PM

I am sorry. I get too excited if someone insults Boston. It is the best. And it has been the leader. Always. I can't explain how STRONG I feel about this feeling. It is spititual.

How great would it be to fix this Ditch and that the air could be cleaned too, all at the same time. And like they say about Storrow, it should be fixed in this lifetime. PLUS, with the train ditch on one side and Storow on the other, it is like, you know, like putting a MASTERPEACE in the cheap frame, not a nice one from a museum.

Shepard

07-21-2009, 09:49 PM

I feel that the level of discourse in this thread has been taken up a notch.

Patriots_1228

07-21-2009, 09:53 PM

1. I never insulted Boston. I merely gave credit where credit is due.

2. What is the Big Ditch? You mean the big dig? The big dig was a project to place the central artery underground. What you are referring to is the mass pike which has been around for god knows how long. Ned's house is in the south end [if i recall] which borders the Mass Pike but is nowhere near the big dig.

3. How immature are you making jokes about the perkins school?

4. Did you go to school? Unalienable means that it cannot be denied. Those rights are unalienable because it is wrong to deny someone those rights. It has nothing to do with fricking space aliens.

5. You really need to pay attention in history class, or at least look stuff up on wikipedia before you say it. While John Adams was influential in convincing congress to sign the declaration, he only played a minor role in writing it, it was primarily jefferson who wrote it*

The Massachusetts constitution, written in part by John Adams, which you pointed out, was written 3 years after the declaration in 1779, so how on earth could they have copied him when they wrote theirs 3 years prior? There isn't even a relation between them anyways, they are two different types of documents.

6. If the light on your keyboard is green, it means you might have hit caps lock accidentally.

bostonbred

07-21-2009, 10:05 PM

I feel that the level of discourse in this thread has been taken up a notch.

I say thank you, because better to fix this than be necrophiliacs over the dead. As for RIGHTS, mr,pat, look at youre bill of rights and youll see I am right. On the Big Ditch I say go to Clarendon and Boylston, walk south, when you get on the bridge, take a left over the rail. Bingo, when you fall 50 feet you found it. Go now. Whoops... GO NOW!!! (LOL!!!)

Patriots_1228

07-21-2009, 10:08 PM

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

I looked, its not there. Maybe I messed up. Perhaps it will show up if I type the URL in all caps and add 3 exclamation points.

bostonbred

07-21-2009, 10:57 PM

I am NOT a Braintree surgeon but neither you not to say Adams was best in setting up the RIGHTS of which you speak. And it is in BOSTON that the OLDEST CONSTITUTION still lives. NOT the boat, but everybud nows that is old too. (And cool.)

http://www.socialaw.com/article.htm?cid=15747

http://books.google.com/books?id=E9TOxypjZY4C&pg=PA379&lpg=PA379&dq=john+adams+mass+constitution+bill+of+rights&source=bl&ots=4geNpAw2vm&sig=9N-afa4TYnEhxbNhLhk51_a6j38&hl=en&ei=WoVmSrPWBZuUtgfnvtn9Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

What this has to do is that Mr. Ned F. and others have the right to their peace, and we should find a way TO GIVE IT TO THEM!!!

Bedtime sad to say.

briv

07-22-2009, 12:52 AM

Check your private messages, Bostonbred.

Patriots_1228

07-22-2009, 07:25 AM

^yes but as I said the idea of unalienable rights comes from the declaration of independence many years earlier, and those ideas go back even further to the magna carta in england centuries ago. I can't even see the point your trying to make. Ned has his air. Nobody is sealing off his house or something. The south end is still going to be a lovely place if this tower is built. And how will a tower deny him fresh air? please explain that?

bostonbred

07-22-2009, 08:45 AM

Check your private messages, Bostonbred.

sent to principals office.

my point to mr pat is if as mr ned f says the air will be more densely bad at his house due to deck it will be bad for the neighborhood too. so why not get rid of diesle trains there with electric, and let new and cleaner cars do their thing, too

i had the idea on West Station and electric shuttles on tracks to it and South Station that solves the real air problem. my point is not understood because 1. i am too eager and write bad; second, the misunderstanding is because so many are hung up on tower or no tower. with all dues respect, it is the deck and vent that is at issue, not a tower(s. tower fixation blinds like the sun.

you could have a deck a mile long with Arnolds' arboretum on it full of orchids and you still have vents with nasty train breath coming out of them. this is the problem to solve, not towers. the big ditch won't be solved till FUNDAMENTAL ROOT OF PROBLEM grasped.

you are all nice to me even if you tease me of make fun and don't follow my ideas. i am used, so it doesnt bother.

i am not supposedto post for awhile so. that is democracy. that is boston

Justin7

07-22-2009, 10:42 AM

Next person to take bostonbred seriously goes to the corner with the dunce cap.

Patriots_1228

07-22-2009, 01:19 PM

Next person to take bostonbred seriously goes to the corner with the dunce cap.

If there was a forum troll hall of fame, he'd have my vote.

Shepard

07-22-2009, 01:52 PM

Next person to take bostonbred seriously goes to the corner with the dunce cap.

Right on, Justin -everyone should realize that, as a wise forum participant once noted, "an ignorant of history is a fool to repeat it."

Ned Flaherty

08-01-2009, 02:24 AM

Columbus Center complaints intensify

By Globe Correspondent Christina Pazzanese • August 1, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Intensify.jpg

Among the complaints of residents about the unfinished Columbus Center project is the removal of Jersey barriers along the Mass. Pike, Cortes St., and a Pike ramp on Arlington St. (Christina Pazzanese)

As the fate of the stalled Columbus Center project continues to twist in the wind, some residents of Back Bay, Bay Village, and the South End are getting fed up with declining conditions in their neighborhoods. The 7-acre, $800 million development has been in the works since 1996 and calls for a hotel, luxury condominium high-rises, a parking garage, and a new city park to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike from Clarendon Street to Marginal Road.

Though the controversial project has long had its critics, neighbors ramped up concerns and doubts after developers were granted an 18-month construction hiatus to sort out financing difficulties last year.

Renewed complaints by residents prompted officials from the state Executive Office of Transportation, which assumed oversight of the project from the Turnpike Authority in May, and authority officials, to tour the area July 13.

Ned Flaherty, a South End resident and project watchdog, says the developers have 26 restoration tasks that they are required to finish, in addition to promises they must fulfill under the existing lease agreement governing the city and state property.

Among them are removing Jersey barriers along the Mass. Pike, Cortes Street, and a Pike ramp at Arlington Street that narrow the roadway; replacing two dozen trees that were cut down on Cortes; restoring power to more than 75 lights over the Pike that have been dark for well over a year; and paying for a new ventilation system at the MBTA Back Bay train station to help filter high levels of diesel exhaust.

Other requests include taking down construction fences, and cleaning up trash and weeds.

The developer, state, and city respond

“The Columbus Center developers have thus far spent over $400,000 on ‘temporary’ restoration efforts, in response to requests from the neighborhoods, the city, and the state,” the development team at CUIP-Winn Columbus Center LLC stated in an e-mail. The firm has removed barriers along Marginal Road; pushed back a fence and patched pavement on Cahners Way; fixed or replaced torn screens on several fences; and picked up litter and debris, said Carolyn Spicer, a company spokeswoman. “We take restoration issues very seriously and are currently working with the city and state to address the additional issues raised. The economic challenges for this project are not unlike any other project in the country. This project is a priority for us, and we continue to work hard to ensure that Columbus Center moves forward as quickly as possible,” the statement said.

State transportation officials have not yet reached an agreement on what work will be done or by what date. “We are meeting with the developers, and our goal is to have the developers clean up the site according to the neighbors’ understandable concerns,” said Adam Hurtubise, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Transportation.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority has been working with the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services to ensure complaints that affect city property are addressed by the developer.

“At this time, the BRA is awaiting the outcome of the state’s determination . . . of the development’s status,” said Jessica Shumaker, a BRA spokeswoman. “In the interim, at the city level, we will continue to enforce and monitor safety and transportation issues expeditiously.”

Commissioner William Good said officials from the city’s Inspectional Services Department walked through the area last week to review complaints about improper trash disposal. Good said the department will monitor the neighborhood, though it has no plans to install security cameras, as some hoped.

As for that new air filtration system at Back Bay Station, the MBTA and state transportation officials have identified $3 million in federal stimulus funds to pay for the equipment, said T spokeswoman Lydia Rivera.

Now under federal review, the money is expected to be released in October, with a contract to follow after Jan. 1, she said.

Who’s in charge?

Secretary of Transportation James A. Aloisi Jr., Executive Office of Transportation. 10 Park Plaza. Suite 3170. Boston, MA 02116. 617-973-7000.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/01/columbus_center_project_complaints_intensify/

Suffolk 83

08-01-2009, 08:20 AM

I don't blame them for being disgusted about the current situation. Even though they unknowingly contributed to it.

Ned Flaherty

08-02-2009, 04:30 PM

I don't blame them for being disgusted about the current situation. Even though they unknowingly contributed to it.

No, they didn’t contribute to the current situation, not at all._ Suffolk 83, you’re thinking of another proposal, or perhaps no proposal.

The residents in this article who are now up in arms about barriers, lost trees, fences, trash, weeds, etc. never contributed anything to the public meetings (2001 - 2003), and they never tried to._ They first showed interest in Columbus Center only in spring 2008, after California:_ (1) refused to sign an amended lease; (2) failed to buy $295 million in performance bonds; (3) halted work; (4) returned rental equipment; (5) abandoned the 7-acre site, and (6) refused to restore it.

Everything that bothers these residents now was decided by California, between the time that it bought the project on 15 March 2006, and the time when workers and equipment disappeared in March 2008.

These residents got involved only after the situation of which they complain had already occurred, so they had no role in causing it._ But their lack of contribution to public meetings can’t be blamed as the cause of this, because other residents of Chinatown, Back Bay, South End, and Bay Village all warned of the need to prevent such problems during years of public meetings.

On 15 May 2003, the City and the developer published a detailed, citizen-reviewed “Construction Management Plan” which they promised would prevent such problems._ But on 26 April 2006, they quietly re-wrote it, with no public notice, to favor the City and the developer, and to disregard community concerns._ Consequently, everything negative that’s happened to the surrounding communities was done as part of a City-approved plan._ Mayor Menino feels his only duty is to supply rat poison to the site, and keep traffic moving._ He’s broken every promise for restoration that he made to residents while he toured Cortes Street — flanked by carefully chosen supporters, smiling for the news photographers — in April 2008.

This demonstrates why mayoral candidates Kevin McCrea, Sam Yoon, and Michael Flaherty all want urban planning moved out of the BRA and into City Hall, so mayors would be forced to share control over urban planning with city councilors and voters.

bbfen

08-02-2009, 05:21 PM

No, they didn’t contribute to the current situation, not at all._ Suffolk 83, you’re thinking of another proposal, or perhaps no proposal.

The residents in this article who are now up in arms about barriers, lost trees, fences, trash, weeds, etc. never contributed anything to the public meetings (2001 - 2003), and they never tried to._ They first showed interest in Columbus Center only in spring 2008, after California:_ (1) refused to sign an amended lease; (2) failed to buy $295 million in performance bonds; (3) halted work; (4) returned rental equipment; (5) abandoned the 7-acre site, and (6) refused to restore it.

Everything that bothers these residents now was decided by California, between the time that it bought the project on 15 March 2006, and the time when workers and equipment disappeared in March 2008.

These residents got involved only after the situation of which they complain had already occurred, so they had no role in causing it._ But their lack of contribution to public meetings can’t be blamed as the cause of this, because other residents of Chinatown, Back Bay, South End, and Bay Village all warned of the need to prevent such problems during years of public meetings.

I whole heartedly disagree. Vote, or don't complain about elected officials. Attend jury duty, or don't complain about the O.J. verdict.

Everyone must participate in the civic process, because all politics is local. The indifference of this group of citizens to come back now and say, "We've been had," is ridiculous.

Suggesting that the indifference of these neighbors had nothing to with the current situation is naive. The absence of their voice was implicit consent for everything that's gone on here, and they are just as liable for the current state of the job site as any other factor.

Ned Flaherty

08-03-2009, 06:38 AM

. . . they are just as liable for the current state of the job site as any other factor.

That’s untrue._ No neighbor is liable for this developer’s failure to raise capital._ Anyone who assumes that just doesn’t know the project history.

California’s investor-owners halted their own funding in 2007, Governor Patrick rescinded state funding in 2008, and every commercial bank that was asked for a loan always refused._ The $850 million never existed._ Claiming that it did, and then getting caught, is entirely the developer’s fault and liability, and is the reason that nothing was ever built, and that the job site went dead 1.5 years ago.

Hundreds of other citizens predicted this proposal would end as it has._ Their warnings were all ignored._ Adding 12 more voices from Cortes Street to the hundreds of other public comments would not have provided the missing $850 million.

The neighbors who did not offer suggestions for a site maintenance plan 6 years ago have no bearing on — or liability for — the proposal’s failure today._ Nothing these neighbors did, or might have done, could have prevented the current outcome.

bbfen

08-03-2009, 06:59 AM

Ned, I disagree with you. It's my opinion, so take it or leave it. Enough with the history lessons though.

You're saying "12 more voices" wouldn't have changed this situation. I never underestimate the power of a few people trying to change the world.

I also think you deliberately act like an obtuse mule (here and IRL). The more people get involved, the less opportunity our "city leaders" have to make decisions in an abstract vacuum. Who knows how those 12 voices would have shifted momentum in the overall project.

Ned Flaherty

08-03-2009, 08:29 AM

. . . Enough with the history lessons . . .

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”
— poet/philosopher George Santayana
Scribner’s Magazine, 1905, page 284

. . . You're saying "12 more voices" wouldn't have changed this situation. . . . Who knows how those 12 voices would have shifted momentum in the overall project.

These 12 voices would not have shifted momentum at all, because they were always — and only — concerned with site management, which history already shows had no bearing on the project’s outcome._ When a developer lacks $850 million in capital, extra voices whining about site management are irrelevant.

Patriots_1228

08-03-2009, 09:34 AM

I believe you mean:
"An ignorant of history is a fool to repeat it"!!!
-Bornandbred

bostonbred

08-03-2009, 09:52 AM

I see my name here but it is wrong, so I must speak about it.

First, like Mr. Ned says, Santana is right. He is good musician and obviously KNOWS HIS HISTORY!!! I also agree with Mr. Ned F. that Cortes Street people are not to blame for the dead trees and cement blocks. They are not the EVIL MAGIC WOMAN, but victims of capitolist agressors (I learn about this in school) who pick on us over here to exploit our trees and air.

Second, this is all part of the RIGHTS. So I say NO to CORTES THE TREE KILLers!!!

AmericanFolkLegend

08-03-2009, 10:57 AM

I tend to agree with Ned on this. The Columbus Center thread reads like one long complaint implying that Ned (and/or other vocal activists like him) have scuttled the Columbus Center. Now bbfen is complaining that silent neighbors: are just as liable for the current state of the job site as any other factor. If the Cortes Street residents had stepped up and bitched about construction mitigation during the permitting process, we'd be blaming them for scuttling the development as well.

The real problem with the Columbus Center is the rub with any air rights development: you need density to make the economics work.

MTA is fine with that - they want to maximize lease payments. But the City needs to take residents (voters) concerns into account. As permitted, the Columbus Center was less dense (on an FAR basis) than Copley. That's why it failed. Three options moving forward:
1. Leave the canyon as it is.
2. Increase the project's density.
3. Maintain or decrease density, subsidize the project..

Patriots_1228

08-03-2009, 03:08 PM

Bostonbred: I was thinking of the dropkick murphys record label, which is Born and Bred Records haha.

But please notice the date on Ned's quote. 1905. Santana wasn't alive back then.

bostonbred

08-03-2009, 03:42 PM

Thanks! Don't listen to oldies much so Dropkick Murphys are more my time than Santana. But that Mr Ned F. is either apretty old wise man with white Santa Clause beard or has LOTS of OLD 1905 Scriblers magazines stacked in the house!!!

kz1000ps

08-03-2009, 07:19 PM

Note:

Santayana http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6849/doesntoqueal.jpg Santana.

And, “those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” is a very, very, very, very, very, very famous quote.

Shepard

08-03-2009, 07:27 PM

Who else gets the sense that bostonbred could be Ned's less serious alter-ego foil? Mods, have we got an IP match?

kz1000ps

08-03-2009, 07:30 PM

Ha, makes sense to me!

bbfen

08-03-2009, 07:58 PM

I tend to agree with Ned on this. The Columbus Center thread reads like one long complaint implying that Ned (and/or other vocal activists like him) have scuttled the Columbus Center. Now bbfen is complaining that silent neighbors: If the Cortes Street residents had stepped up and bitched about construction mitigation during the permitting process, we'd be blaming them for scuttling the development as well.

Sort of, but not really. I never said they needed to bitch. Please re-read my responses to Ned. I actually think that bitching has a harmful effect on the development of Boston.

There's an inevitable march of unstoppable progress that is self-evident to those city-dwellers who accept that, for crying out loud, they live in a city that, by its nature, must be dynamic in order to be healthy.

This site has been an obvious candidate for development since the construction of the extension. If I were one of those neighbors, I would direct my efforts to those things where I thought I could make a difference.

Instead of shrieking in terror about every perceived injustice these assclowns think has been thrust upon them by the BRA since moving into the neighborhood 5, 10 or 15 years ago, I would personally have done this:

1 focus on design that mitigated negative effects and being positive about elements that seem beneficial to the community
2 try to negotiate constraints on construction to have as few adverse effects on the neighorhood as possible
3 talk (calmly and non-hysterically or zealout-like) to elected representatives, the BRA, the developers, and others with power to define post-construction conditions

In fact, I've done all of these things in the past, with success. I can't say every request of mine hsa always been met (living next to a live construction site is never a cup of tea) but sugar goes a long way toward baiting the flytrap. Or something like that.

bostonbred

08-03-2009, 09:25 PM

Mr Ned and me and I dont know about his church so how can I know about his altar?. But still I agree about the RIGHTS, even if I don't know old,old,old tunes. But I ask it seems like this ashaky deal, and why do we keep kissing lipstick on to this pig corpse? Better to think up the best foot forward on agreed problems so that this can move a head when the JOBS come back. That is my too sense on it.

AmericanFolkLegend

08-04-2009, 10:25 AM

^^ Well said bbfen.

sidewalks

08-06-2009, 02:22 PM

I think I've figured out what Ned does with the rest of his time...alias "Rick Dyer"

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2009/08/making_a_federal_case_out_of_a.html?p1=Well_MostPo p_Emailed3

tobyjug

08-06-2009, 02:25 PM

^^^ I actually know this guy! (The sixties and seventies were tougher on some than others.)

Bubbybu

08-06-2009, 02:31 PM

the 'sylvan woods'?

the woody woods?

yikes....

sidewalks

08-06-2009, 02:33 PM

You know him? Is he as much of a loon as he seems in the article? Has Toby the hound ever been persecuted by this nutjob?

This article reminds us that there are zealots of all stripes in all places for all sorts of absurd causes.

Beton Brut

08-06-2009, 03:16 PM

Fox should do a reality show with Rick Dyer and Michael Vick.

palindrome

08-06-2009, 03:42 PM

I think I've figured out what Ned does with the rest of his time...alias "Rick Dyer"

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2009/08/making_a_federal_case_out_of_a.html?p1=Well_MostPo p_Emailed3

Hahaha although he might use that for newton, he keeps his main identity for anything boston related.

http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1189472&format=comments&cnum=2&at_comment=776902#cnum776902

bbfen

08-06-2009, 04:56 PM

Fox should do a reality show with Rick Dyer and Michael Vick.

Ruthlessly hilarious.

JohnAKeith

08-06-2009, 05:33 PM

I hate rude dog owners. I support the people against the dogs off leashes, totally. Odd, I had a dream last night, in fact, that an unleashed dog jumped up on me. I was scared to death.

Later, I had a dream that I was eating a huge marshmallow. When I woke up, my pillow was gone.

Beton Brut

08-06-2009, 05:36 PM

Not that this has anything to do with Columbus Center, but I do feel that Michael Vick has paid his debt to society and should be allowed to return to the NFL, under the stipulation that he take the field for every game without cleats, pads, or a helmet.

Ned Flaherty

08-06-2009, 08:45 PM

Arthur Winn retires

Managing Principal Arthur Winn recently retired, and handed over day-to-day management of Winn Companies to his son, Gilbert Winn._ Gilbert reconfirmed what his father disclosed for the first time during a 29 March 2009 Boston Globe interview:_ that Winn is now only a minority investor in the proposed Columbus Center (“Turnpike Authority hesitant about proposals for public food market”, Boston Globe, 6 August 2009).

tobyjug

08-07-2009, 01:03 PM

Winn winn situation?

KentXie

08-17-2009, 05:30 PM

Turnpke Authority to clean up stalled project's site
August 17, 2009 04:47 PM

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority will pay to undo construction work by Columbus Center’s developers, who have been unable to proceed with the project since halting work due to financial problems in spring 2008.

Jeffrey Mullan, the authority’s executive director, said it will remove fencing, level the work site, and plant grass along Cortes Street, where neighbors have complained about debris, vagrants, and other problems for more than a year.

Mullan said the authority will seek reimbursement from the development team, which includes MacFarlane Partners, the real estate investment arm of the California state pension fund, and Boston-based WinnCompanies. The Beal Cos. are serving as a consultant.

A spokeswoman for the developers had no comment.

The state did not secure a performance bond it could use to force the companies to repair the site in case of financial problems or other unforeseen circumstances, officials said.

The work to restore about one acre along Cortes Street will cost about $100,000, but the bill could grow because work is also needed to repair the Arlington Street on ramp to the turnpike. Lighting and sidewalks in the area must also be repaired.

Mullan said the development team has indicated it would be willing to pay for that work, estimated to cost more than $500,000, but the state has not received a commitment.

‘‘We’re hopeful the developer will come forward,’’ Mullan said. ‘‘If not, that’s more work we have to do.’’

If the developer does not agree to pay, Mullan said, the state will pursue other remedies. He declined to elaborate. But the matter would probably become part of any negotiations about letting the stalled project move forward.

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/08/turnpke_authori.html

BostonSkyGuy

08-17-2009, 06:13 PM

Winn winn situation?

Oh, I see what you did there. I'm impressed.

tobyjug

08-17-2009, 07:08 PM

Thanks!

I wish the reporter in DFX's post had asked "why is there no performance bond?" It is so standard, and as a public agency you would think that after years of dealing with 30:39M and 149 the idea would have crossed someone's mind (or is the TPA exempt from the public bidding laws?? gulp!)

JohnAKeith

08-17-2009, 09:04 PM

Well, I'm sure the neighbors are pleased that, instead of the promised high-end restaurant / deli in 285 Columbus, they now have a CVS. Watch your property values soar!

Ned Flaherty

08-18-2009, 07:53 AM

Pike will pay to clean up building site

Columbus Center lot to be restored

By Globe Staff • Casey Ross • August 18, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Turnpike-cleanup.jpg

Residents of Cortes Street have complained about unsightly fencing, vagrants, and construction debris. (George Rizer/ Globe Staff/ File 2008)

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority will use its own money to clean up a construction site at the stalled Columbus Center development in Boston, where work stopped in spring 2008 when the builders ran into financial problems.

Jeffrey Mullan, executive director of the Turnpike Authority, said the agency will spend $100,000 to clean up property along Cortes Street, where neighbors have complained about unsightly fencing, vagrants, and construction debris.

Mullan said the agency will seek to be repaid for the work from Columbus Center’s development team, which includes the real estate investment arm of the California state pension fund and Boston-based WinnCompanies.

A second cleanup, of the turnpike’s Arlington Street onramp, could cost much more. That work, which would include replacing lighting and a sidewalk, is estimated to cost more than $500,000. The developers have indicated they will pay for that work, but the state has not received a final commitment. “We’re going to continue to monitor this, and we’re hopeful the developer will come forward,’’ Mullan said. “If not, that’s more work we have to do.’’

He said the turnpike has been unable to force the developers to pay for the work because it failed to secure a performance bond or other guarantee that would compel them to do so. Mullan said the turnpike can pursue other remedies to recover the money, but he would not elaborate on them yesterday.

A spokeswoman for Columbus Center said the project’s principals could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Officials said the cleanup is an acknowledgement that construction of Columbus Center will not resume anytime soon. Still, negotiations about the project’s future are ongoing, and the director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority said yesterday the development team is trying to come up with a new construction schedule, one that would divide the project into phases, to make it more affordable to build.

“They’re working on a revised plan for their development,’’ BRA director John Palmieri said yesterday. “They’re planning to do the work one phase at a time.’’

Palmieri added that Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has indicated a willingness to work with the Winn team on a new timetable.

Any changes to the phasing of the condominium, hotel, and retail project would require a new round of public hearings as well as approval from the BRA. It remains unclear whether or when that process would begin, because the developers have not indicated they are prepared to resume construction.

Work on the project was halted in April 2008 after the developers failed to secure loans needed to continue paying for construction. At that point, the builders had leveled the site and begun to build part of a platform over the turnpike. The site was then left covered with debris and equipment.

Several months later, the Columbus Center team hired the Beal Cos., developer of the nearby Clarendon condominium building, to review the project’s finances and devise a plan to move forward.

Meanwhile, Menino and turnpike officials have repeatedly pressured the developers to restore the site along Cortes Street because of the neighborhood complaints about its condition.

In addition to removing a construction fence and debris, the Cortes work will include leveling the site and planting grass. A spokesman for the turnpike said the authority does not plan in the near term to replace more than two dozen trees that were removed from the property.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/08/18/pike_will_pay_to_clean_up_building_site/

mass88

08-18-2009, 11:46 AM

If you guys were betting, what odds would you give this project to eventually get built? And if you feel it will be built, what time frame are we looking at?

tmac9wr

08-18-2009, 12:43 PM

If you guys were betting, what odds would you give this project to eventually get built? And if you feel it will be built, what time frame are we looking at?

I'd say in the year 2800 a 15 story pre-cast building will be erected, despite fierce competition led by Ned Flaherty XXXIII.

Ned Flaherty

08-18-2009, 12:46 PM

Instead of wagering for entertainment, I’ll just give some key historical facts that others can rely upon when placing their own bets.

First proposed on 18 December 1996, Columbus Center is now a 14-year-old juvenile delinquent:_ few friends, fewer skills, nil assets, no revenue, and zero prospects.

Governor Patrick rescinded state subsidies 1-1/2 years ago._ Every bank ever asked to fund the proposal has refused._ Even the $245 billion owners, CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, cut off funding in September 2007 because they didn’t have enough faith in the scheme to dare risking their own money.

The latest approved schedule, negotiated between the state and the developer, and agreed to in January 2008, called for completion no later than 2026, but now even that far-off date is being re-negotiated for a much later curtain.

As I’ve been saying for several years, all this — and much more — can be found in the public records.

pelhamhall

08-18-2009, 01:10 PM

The Clarendon (Columbus Center Tower 1) was selling hot when it first went on the market, and this led to Beal's interest in the adjoining sites. Now that the Clarendon's sales have cooled off considerably, and the "One Back Bay" rental brand has been introduced, there is little interest in building the other towers of Columbus Center.

When will it get built? Simple - when the economy dictates a profit here.

Ned Flaherty

08-18-2009, 05:42 PM

Pike to pay for Columbus cleanup

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Columbus-cleanup.jpg
Photo by John Wilcox

CART OFF: The Mass. Turnpike Authority will pick up the $100,000 tab to clean up part of the stalled Columbus Center project near Cortes Street.

By Herald Staff • August 18, 2009

Massachusetts Turnpike Authority officials said yesterday they will initially pick up the $100,000 tab for cleaning up part of the stalled Columbus Center construction site.

“This will stabilize the situation in response to the neighborhood’s concerns,” said Turnpike Authority Executive Director Jeffrey Mullan of a plan to remove debris along Cortes Street and plant grass. The cleanup should take six weeks and the Pike hopes to be paid back by the developer.

A spokeswoman for the project declined comment. The development team includes California pension-fund affiliate MacFarlane Partners and Winn Cos. of Boston with consultants The Beal Cos. and The Related Cos.

The $850 million, 1.3-million-square-foot condo, hotel and retail project has been in the works for about 13 years. The seven-acre project was supposed to be built on a deck over the Pike with a new park linking the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods, but funding woes put the project on hold last year.

Neighbors have complained about the unfinished business.

“The neighbors are right,” said Peter O’Connor, the Pike’s deputy secretary for real estate and economic development. “There’s a wind screen that runs the length of Cortes Street and effectively blocks the eyes on the street. . . . I think we’ve seen an increase in petty crime and more homeless people camping out there.”

Mullan said the state is working with the Boston Redevelopment Authority to keep the project viable, but “we don’t believe (the developers) are going to do anything any time soon.”

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/20090818pike_to_pay_for_columbus_cleanup/srvc=business&position=also

Shepard

08-18-2009, 06:47 PM

Thanks, Herald, for locating my missing shopping cart.

type001

08-19-2009, 06:52 AM

It's ironic how the neighborhood residents who through up so many barriers are now begging to have them removed.

sidewalks

08-19-2009, 09:06 AM

pelhamhall

08-19-2009, 12:12 PM

I feel bad for the Cortes Street residents - they (like most of the community) were extremely supportive of this project. After having to endure decades facing a traffic gutter, they were finally getting the wound facing their brownstones fixed. Now, they are worse off than before, as the trees that offered just a little protection from the noise of the Mass Pike are gone.

BTW - anyone else feel the shopping cart prop was staged there by the Herald reporter? A little too perfectly framed...

Beton Brut

08-19-2009, 12:23 PM

My guess is that the cart belongs to the South Bay Home Depot. It may have been tossed over the construction fence by hooligans.

Ron Newman

08-19-2009, 12:40 PM

Maybe, but the Prudential Shaw's is a lot closer, as are lots of CVS stores.

bbfen

08-19-2009, 07:00 PM

Maybe, but the Prudential Shaw's is a lot closer, as are lots of CVS stores.

Prudential Shaws doesn't use that type of cart.

I don't shop at CVS or Target, so I don't know about them.

BarbaricManchurian

08-19-2009, 08:38 PM

Only Home Depot has that type of orange cart, it's definitely from South Bay "Center."

AmericanFolkLegend

08-20-2009, 07:34 AM

Maybe move this to a new shopping cart thread . . .

BostonYoureMyHome

08-20-2009, 07:57 AM

palindrome

08-20-2009, 08:31 AM

This is a shameful situation. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for this. Much as I want to see this project move forward, Winn should lose all its rights to this site if they are unable or unwilling to clean up their own mess.

Is there a way the state can take the project approvals and designs by eminent domain/force Winn to sell by threatening a lawsuit, and sell them to another developer to recoup the costs of cleanup?

The buyer will receive the approval and building designs.

I think a lawsuit is the only other way to recoup costs. Unless Winn is bankrupt, he should have to pay.

TheRifleman

08-20-2009, 08:36 AM

Very sad it was only a matter of time before the states start using the stimulus packages, bailout for their friends.
I guess these developers don't have to risk anything anymore they just pay off the politicians then they steal your taxpayers money because they are so incompetent to get the job done.
I have no respect for any of these scumbags anymore.

Remember this......History will show that this 2008-2012era was nothing more than protectionism and Facism.

KentXie

08-20-2009, 09:53 AM

This was taken from the One Kenmore thread:
But perhaps most important to Fenway Center’s odds of success is the Patrick administration’s willingness to help pay for the higher costs associated with building over the turnpike, rather than on the ground. Instead of requiring Rosenthal to pay the full cost of the deck, the state would pay up to $30 million toward that additional cost.

So Ned was wrong, the cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground. If you read the news article in the One Kenmore thread, I think it would have been better to thrown the money on CC seeing how construciton would have started earlier and that's it was a larger project that would have given the state a larger revenue.

Ned Flaherty

08-20-2009, 02:02 PM

. . . Cortes Street residents . . . (like most of the community) were extremely supportive of this project. After having to endure decades facing a traffic gutter, they were finally getting the wound facing their brownstones fixed.

No, on both counts:_ (1) support and (2) brownstones.

Support._ Re-read the public records._ The vast majority of people in the surrounding communities opposed the proposal for many reasons; the supportive comment letters were far fewer, and mostly from people who had been offered cash, jobs, and prizes, such as the hotel workers union, the valet parking attendant employees, out-of-town/out-of-state construction workers, and charities that wanted the cash that the developers offered to buy their support.

Brownstones._ Brownstone is a brown, Triassic period sandstone commonly used to build row houses in New York and Chicago, but almost never in Boston._ There are no brownstones on Cortes Street.

Ned Flaherty

08-20-2009, 02:05 PM

Is there a way the state can take the project approvals and designs by eminent domain/force Winn to sell by threatening a lawsuit, and sell them to another developer to recoup the costs of cleanup? . . . I think a lawsuit is the only other way to recoup costs. Unless Winn is bankrupt, he should have to pay.

All this continued talk of “Winn”, “lawsuits”, and “seizing designs by eminent domain” just further proves the same problem that I’ve been noting for over 2 years now:_ forum members are mis-informed and un-informed._ For all those who still haven’t read the public records about this project, these 8 clarifications should help.

1. Municipal approvals can’t be seized by eminent domain.
2. Architectural designs can’t be seized by eminent domain.
3. Eminent domain proceedings apply only to land.
4. Arthur Winn sold this proposal to California (CalPERS, CUIP, and MURC) 3-1/2 years ago, on 15 March 2006.
5. Now retired, Winn is only just barely involved.
6. Since engaging The Beal Companies and The Related Companies as “cost-cutting consultants” one year ago, California has been considering forcing Winn out altogether.
7. California signed a lease with Massachusetts 3-1/2 years ago, on 2 May 2006.
8. All control and responsibility has rested with California since then.
9. All liability rests with the Columbus Center company, which is nothing more than an empty corporate shell, created by California, to never have any assets or revenue, so that it would always be litigation-proof.

Bubbybu

08-20-2009, 02:13 PM

So much time and brain power spent and wasted arguing about some obscure mediocre neighborhood project....and to top it off...it's done with a snide and condescending attitude.

You sir...are a clown.

Ned Flaherty

08-20-2009, 02:37 PM

So Ned was wrong, the cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground.

KentXie, apparently you never learned the difference between “construction” cost and “development” cost._ Misunderstanding about this is common; other forum members also easily confuse these two terms.

I never said that the “cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground” as you wrote._ In fact, both the Fenway Center owner and the Commonwealth admitted in this morning’s Boston Globe that the 3 most important financial figures — tunnel cost, total development cost, and state rent revenue — all remain unknown.

The public records have shown for years that Columbus Center’s total development cost (acquisition + construction + financing + administration) over discounted air rights property is the same or less than the total development cost for equivalent buildings over fair-market-value land.

Columbus Center’s mythical “deck premium” does not exist; the project owners fabricated that idea to fool the public, including students, hobbyists, lobbyists, reporters, politicians, and lots of other people, all of whom should have known better.

The reason that the Columbus Center owners have refused for 14 years to allow a public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies is because such an audit would show that their “deck premium” is nothing but a myth, created to boost their private profit at public expense.

Re-read my post #1278 on 21 August 2008.

. . . it would have been better to thrown the money on CC seeing how construction would have started earlier and that's it was a larger project that would have given the state a larger revenue.

No._ Re-read the 3,400-page lease._ An earlier start date does not increase the rent paid to the state._ Furthermore, Columbus Center’s owners tricked the Commonwealth into postponing all rent until Columbus Center’s accountants admit that the project shows a profit._ One primary goal that accountants have is to reduce taxable profit to zero and thus avoid paying taxes._ So, no matter how much actual profit occurs, Columbus Center’s accountants will always adjust their bookkeeping to show zero profit, so that they never have to pay the state any rent.

Remember:_ the owners stopped funding their own project in September 2007, and every commercial bank that was asked to fund the project refused._ Public subsidies can’t save any project that is in this much distress, so any expenditure would have been a total waste._ That’s why no subsidy funds were ever released to Columbus Center.

Wocket

08-20-2009, 03:09 PM

State may absorb $30m on project built over Pike

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration is offering to absorb up to $30 million of a developer’s cost to build a mammoth complex above the Massachusetts Turnpike, in hopes of jump-starting construction over the highway after the most recent effort, Columbus Center, stalled.

http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2009/08/20/state_may_absorb_30m_on_pike_air_rights_project/

Wocket

08-20-2009, 03:24 PM

...and mostly from people who had been offered cash, jobs, and prizes, such as the hotel workers union, the valet parking attendant employees, out-of-town/out-of-state construction workers, and charities that wanted the cash that the developers offered to buy their support...

I'm a little surprised Ned, being the evidence-based individual he is, would make such a claim that is impossible to both prove or disprove. Tsk Tsk.

A side note, Cortes street is part of the Bay Village, the neighborhood association of which was for the project.

"In a prepared statement, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association said its executive committee unanimously supported the $400 million Columbus Center ..."
Boston Globe, June 06, 2003

.. just to be thorough, from the BVNA newsletter, dated June 2003

"The Executive Committee of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association has voted unanimously to support the project as proposed and following numerous changes by the developer in response to community input."

Ned Flaherty

08-20-2009, 03:54 PM

So much time and brain power spent and wasted arguing about some obscure mediocre neighborhood project . . .

Wrong, on three counts: “obscure”, “mediocre”, and “neighborhood”.

“Obscure” • The project’s not “obscure” as you wrote._ Now in its 14th year of being re-proposed, while Commonwealth bulldozers remove all traces of it, Columbus Center is Boston’s longest running urban planning failure, ever._ It’s also the biggest subsidy-sucker of its kind, ever.

The public discussions aren’t just about the usual doorknobs and shrubbery; the debate encompasses public process, master planning, taxation, elected officials, bribery, public subsidies to private profiteers, and much more._ Over the years, it’s grabbed the attention of many state legislators, Mayor Menino, five governors, and the White House (yes, the White House).

Moreover, it has kept the attention of state and federal investigative agencies for over 2 years.

Of this forum’s several hundred topics, this thread has the third most views, and only one other thread has more replies._ So no, it’s not obscure at all.

“Mediocre” • Your fellow forum members certainly don’t find the proposal “mediocre” at all. For over three years, nearly 2,000 members have posted here, usually calling it:

“wonderful”
“beautiful”
“beautiful tower”
“beautiful park”
“a great improvement”
“reconnects three neighborhoods”
“NO negatives”
“a utilitarian benefit to the city as a whole”
“a public benefit”
“amazing benefits to the environment”
“an incredible and lasting benefit”
“repairing the Turnpike scar”
“making this part of the city whole again”
“a net benefit to the city fiscally”
“a built neighborhood where before there was nothing”
“a vibrant retail / shopping district”
“signature architectural design”
etcetera.

A handful of forum members don’t like certain details in the design, but such complaints are few.

“Neighborhood” • Your labeling of the proposal as a “neighborhood project” does not in any way dismiss, disregard, or diminish it, nor does that kind of name-calling reduce its significance in any way._ Remember:_ every proposal exists in some neighborhood; there’s no proposal that doesn’t._ When you call any proposal a “neighborhood” proposal you inform no one, and add nothing to the discussion.

Ned Flaherty

08-20-2009, 05:15 PM

...and mostly from people who had been offered cash, jobs, and prizes, such as the hotel workers union, the valet parking attendant employees, out-of-town/out-of-state construction workers, and charities that wanted the cash that the developers offered to buy their support...

I'm a little surprised Ned, being the evidence-based individual he is, would make such a claim that is impossible to both prove or disprove.

Thanks for the compliment, Wocket, but proving/disproving this claim is easy for anyone who knows the communities, attends the meetings, and reads the public records._ I pulled the public comment letters, identified the writers, and matched them to the community beneficiaries list published by the developers._ Some of the endorsers weren’t on the beneficiary list, but many of those were either employed by Columbus Center, or else people hoping to hop onto the development industry gravy train.

Ned Flaherty

08-20-2009, 05:18 PM

"In a prepared statement, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association said its executive committee unanimously supported the $400 million Columbus Center ..."
Boston Globe, June 06, 2003

By itself, your above statement is irrelevant and misleading, because from 4 October 2001 through 4 February 2003, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association officially opposed the Columbus Center proposal.

But then the developers told BVNA President John Shope (56 Fayette Street) and BVNA Vice President & Citizens Advisory Committee Chair Christine Colley (43 Melrose Street) that they could get their very own park-ette, right in front of Shope’s home, and only one block from Colley’s home._ With the assurance of that quid pro quo, the BVNA officers reversed the association’s official position, with virtually no advance notice to their membership.

Colley then railroaded through a final CCCAC (Columbus Center Citizens Advisory Committee) vote in favor of the proposal._ The final vote was 7 in favor, 4 opposed: members sitting in seats owned by the development team and real estate industry all voted in favor; members democratically nominated by their communities all voted opposed._ Having done exactly as the developer and BRA wished, and having betrayed the public trust, Colley then secured for herself a BRA job that has since cost the public over a million dollars for Colley and 3 subordinates._ But, by her own admission, virtually nothing has been accomplished in the 5 years that she’s held that job sucking down public dollars._ Except that she has, of couse, kept in touch with Mr. Shope, as they commiserate and wait for their ill-gotten park-ette to arrive (or not).

In a final irony, as BRA Deputy Director for Compliance, Colley’s job was to track developer promises, fulfill broken promises, make developers keep all other promises, and ensure that no developer ever leaves the public at the altar, or in the lurch._ In her role, she should have ensured that the 7-acre site got restored at no cost to the public._ But she reported nothing in that regard, and now the Commonwealth — and all its citizens — are sadly picking up the tab.

The relevant maps can be seen in forum post #268 on 28 August 2007.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Tracking-promises.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Promises-fall-short.jpg

bostonbred

08-20-2009, 07:46 PM

Mr Ned F is KILLING you here I am thinking so time for you to o advance to you REAR behind France style MAGNETO LINE!!!. (LOL) for drink at Aqwitane.

KentXie

08-20-2009, 08:11 PM

No._ Re-read the 3,400-page lease._ An earlier start date does not increase the rent paid to the state._ Furthermore, Columbus Center’s owners tricked the Commonwealth into postponing all rent until Columbus Center’s accountants admit that the project shows a profit._ One primary goal that accountants have is to reduce taxable profit to zero and thus avoid paying taxes._ So, no matter how much actual profit occurs, Columbus Center’s accountants will always adjust their bookkeeping to show zero profit, so that they never have to pay the state any rent.

And how sure of this are you? You sound more of a conspiracy theorist to make such an accustation. But what would more likely provide a profit? A development with two years of construction, or a development that has yet to start?

KentXie, apparently you never learned the difference between “construction” cost and “development” cost._ Misunderstanding about this is common; other forum members also easily confuse these two terms.

I never said that the “cost for building over the turnpike cost more than building on the ground” as you wrote._ In fact, both the Fenway Center owner and the Commonwealth admitted in this morning’s Boston Globe that the 3 most important financial figures — tunnel cost, total development cost, and state rent revenue — all remain unknown.

Of course you didn't say that, I was the one that did. Regardless of the "construction" cost and "development" cost, the total cost to develop an air right including construction of all parts is greater than that of a project over solid ground which you vehemently argued otherwise. Read the news article which states the One Kenmore project as being cheaper than CC because more of it is built on land and how the government has recognized that decking over the pike is more expensive than just building on land. You said they admitted it. Let me see the article. Until then, good day to you sir.

Anyways, I'm starting to be glad CC did not move forward. Originally, CC was to include two towers before being reduced to one tower and one midrise. Hopefully the new developers will propose a twin tower complex.

kz1000ps

08-20-2009, 08:52 PM

Mr Ned F is KILLING you here I am thinking so time for you to o advance to you REAR behind France style MAGNETO LINE!!!. (LOL) for drink at Aqwitane.

I'll have whatever this guy is drinking/smoking/snorting.

KentXie

08-20-2009, 08:55 PM

Boston.com provided a nice little image for comparisons

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Graphic/2009/08/20/projects730x660__1250751677_0029.gif

Ned Flaherty

08-21-2009, 07:42 AM

Columbus Center fix to leave trees behind

by Tony Lee ● Boston Metro ● August 21-23, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Trees-1.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Trees-2.jpg

PHOTOS BY NICOLAUS CZARNECKI/METRO

Metro Neighbors are upset the developers of the stalled Columbus Center project will not be replanting the trees that were torn down.

Residents abutting a portion of the much-maligned Columbus Center development are seeing the state clean up a strip filled with trash, jersey barriers and overgrown weeds.

But one question lingers: what about the trees?

Two years ago, in preparing the two-acre plot which separates Cortes Street from the Mass Pike for a proposed parking garage, developers of the stalled $624 million mixed-use project cut down 24 mature trees.

Never mind their aesthetic quality, the trees shielded Cortes residents from seven lanes of Mass Pike traffic and seven rail lines, blocking out noise and exhaust from trains, trucks and cars. With the garage delayed and the trees not part of the restoration plan, residents are concerned the landscape has permanently changed.

“My main concern, as an owner, is the value of this place,” said Stefanie Tam, who bought an apartment on Cortes just before the trees were ripped down. “[The lack of trees] have had a huge impact on that.”

At least one resident is just happy something is happening to the land, trees or no trees. “People need to realize that we’ve lived with this for 16 months,” said Cortes Street resident Lynn Andrews. “For us it’s fantastic.”

The Turnpike Authority, after receiving complaints from neighbors, said it will pick up the tab for the $100,000, six-week restoration and seek reimbursement later from Columbus Center developers, but it has no plans to replant trees with the project still up in the air.

Developers were not available for comment but their inactivity speaks volumes to some.

“They shouldn’t have taken the trees down until they knew [how the project would play out],” said Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist who lives on nearby Clarendon Street.

Why not throw in for a few trees?

Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration may offer up to $30 million in financial support to help different developers begin a $450 million complex over the Mass Pike near Fenway Park, according to reports. The aid would help construction start on the 800,000 square foot Fenway Center as the Columbus Center project — which was eyed hopefully as a catalyst in a construction boom over the Pike — remains stalled.

http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/08/21/02/5034-72/index.xml

pelhamhall

08-21-2009, 08:52 AM

If I lived on Cortes Street I would be livid.

I would also remember that one copper nail driven into a tree will kill it. I would also remember that rich, old Arthur Winn probably has lots of beautiful trees in his yard. In my younger days, I might even be angry enough to juxtapose those two thoughts.

It's what Mick Jagger would call "rough justice on ya".

Wocket

08-21-2009, 10:59 AM

Mr Ned F is KILLING you here I am thinking so time for you to o advance to you REAR behind France style MAGNETO LINE!!!. (LOL) for drink at Aqwitane.

Meth is a powerful drug.

Wocket

08-21-2009, 11:08 AM

[QUOTE=Ned Flaherty;81843]By itself, your above statement is irrelevant and misleading, because from 4 October 2001 through 4 February 2003, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association officially opposed the Columbus Center proposal.

Ned, I'm going to require some documentation illustrating the BVNA's opposition during those dates.

Ned Flaherty

08-21-2009, 11:18 AM

And how sure of this are you? You sound more of a conspiracy theorist to make such an accustation. . .

The fact that accountants exist to reclassify profit to avoid taxes is not just an “accustation” [sic] as you wrote._ Ask professional business accountants what they do all year long, and why they do it, and they’ll tell you that a primary goal is to “adjust” the financial records so that the firms show no profit, pay as little tax as possible, and preferably no tax at all._ It is not uncommon for American businesses with millions or billions of revenue to pay no taxes._ It is unfair, and it is unethical, but it is common.

. . . But what would more likely provide a profit? A development with two years of construction, or a development that has yet to start? . . .

So long as you keep confusing profit earned by the Columbus Center developer with revenue collected by the state, you will never understand the very problem you’re trying to argue about._ You are incorrect in treating Columbus Center owner profit and Commonwealth rent revenue as one and the same, because these two factors are largely independent._ Columbus Center can earn huge profits for its owners, but so long as their accountants portray the venture as unprofitable, then no rent is owed._ No, that is not good for the state, or the toll-payers, or the taxpayers, but it is what was agreed to by the Turnpike Authority (the same people who “forgot” to get a performance bond before work started).

As always, if you still do not understand this, if or you still do not believe it, then just re-read the parts of the lease that define the conditions under which rent is owed.

. . . Regardless of the "construction" cost and "development" cost, the total cost to develop an air right including construction of all parts is greater than that of a project over solid ground . . .

Listen to yourself!_ You wrote “regardless of construction cost and regardless of development cost” yet those are the very two factors that settle the argument._ You can not intelligently continue this argument while at the same time disregarding the two factors that settle it._ These two costs — construction cost and total development cost — are different, and that very difference is what makes Columbus Center’s total development cost less in air than it would be on land.

I proved this over a year ago using public records, so I won’t repeat that proof here today._ If you still have doubt about how Columbus Center’s total development cost ended up less over air rights than it would have been on land, then you need to do only 2 simple things.

1. Learn the distinction between “construction cost” vs. “total development cost.”

2. Re-read my messages which explained how CC's TDC is less in air than on land:
#1278 on 21 August 2008
#1411 on 28 September 2008
#1435 on 29 September 2008
#1450 on 05 October 2008

. . . Read the news article which states the One Kenmore project as being cheaper than CC because more of it is built on land . . .

Firstly, no one knows what Fenway Center’s total development cost is, as both the developer and the government admitted in the article._ Secondly, the article does say that Fenway Center is estimated to cost less than Columbus Center, but that’s irrelevant to our discussion here, because you’ve again focused on the wrong data._ In any discussion about how Columbus Center’s total development cost got to be less in air than it would have been on land, comparing costs between different projects is irrelevant.

. . . the government has recognized that decking over the pike is more expensive than just building on land. You said they admitted it. Let me see the article.

No, the government hasn’t recognized anything of the sort._ Re-read the article, especially paragraph #11, which says: “O’Connor said the Turnpike Authority does not yet know how much it will earn in lease payments, nor does it have a cost estimate for the deck.”

Ned Flaherty

08-21-2009, 12:51 PM

. . . “from 4 October 2001 through 4 February 2003, the Bay Village Neighborhood Association officially opposed the Columbus Center proposal.” Ned, I'm going to require some documentation illustrating the BVNA's opposition during those dates.

It’s good that someone here finally asked about the “Shared Neighborhood Vision”, which was a community-sponsored design created in opposition and in competition to the Columbus Center design.

4 October 2001 • After reviewing the latest Winn proposal for over half a year, neighborhood associations from Bay Village, Back Bay, and South End issued a joint press release outlining their common understanding entitled the “Shared Neighborhood Vision” based on the “Civic Vision” (Turnpike Master Plan)._ The 4-page design guidelines reflected consensus recommendations for 7 key problem areas:_ height, density, corridor coverage, traffic, urban design, and parking._ The press release said that if Winn would not agree to develop per the Shared Neighborhood Vision, then the neighborhoods wanted the state properties to be re-bid in the open, competitive process required by the Turnpike Master Plan.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Shared-Vision-launch.jpg

6 February 2003 • The South End News reported on page 6: “. . . once BVNA got theirs — four five-story townhouses facing the neighborhood on Parcel 18, covering of the orphan parcel 19, little in way of commercial space — they scattered, as the classic line from Monty Python’s Life of Brian goes, ‘like rats out of the aqueduct!’ leaving others to fight it out._ This is not the first time BVNA has been accused of playing fast and loose with allies._ Last year, they negotiated a deal with a hotel rather than standing and fighting with Chinatown residents.”

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Shared-Vision-End-1.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Shared-Vision-End-2.jpg

10 February 2003 • The Boston Courant reported: “The Shared Vision received a setback last Tuesday when the Bay Village Neighborhood Association (BVNA) decided to withdraw its endorsement of the proposal._ The neighborhood group voted to change its position, after seeing [Winn-controlled account Pam] McKinney’s economic analyses, according to a letter released to the press by BVNA President John Shope.”

Clarification • In 2001, the Boston Redevelopment Authority hired a certified public accountant to evaluate the proposal for members of the Mayor’s Citizens Advisory Committee, which consisted of 7 members in seats owned by the developer, but only 4 members democratically nominated from their communities.

Citizens eventually discovered that the accountant was selected by Winn Development, her work was paid in full by Winn, and she was under a legal gag order which forbade the disclosure of any information unless approved in advance by Winn._ The accountant was forbidden to even “show her work,” as school teachers used to require of their arithmetic students.

So it was no surprise when the accountant’s numbers didn’t add up._ It also was no surprise when she declared that of the 5 proposals considered . . .

1. no-build
2. Winn preferred design
3. Turnpike Master Plan design
4. Shared Neighborhood Vision design
5. Enclosed Railway design

. . . the only viable proposal was #2 (the very same option that the developer wanted all along).

BarbaricManchurian

08-21-2009, 02:20 PM

Waah, why can't NIMBYs band together to oppose a good project, waah

KentXie

08-21-2009, 06:12 PM

Firstly, no one knows what Fenway Center’s total development cost is, as both the developer and the government admitted in the article._ Secondly, the article does say that Fenway Center is estimated to cost less than Columbus Center, but that’s irrelevant to our discussion here, because you’ve again focused on the wrong data._ In any discussion about how Columbus Center’s total development cost got to be less in air than it would have been on land, comparing costs between different projects is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant just because you say it is. My discussion was that building on land is cheaper than building on just air right. There estimation is relevant because One Kenmore is on 50% land while CC is on 5% and that they estimated One Kenmore is more expensive than CC. I'm focusing on the date they have given which is what we are discussing.

No, the government hasn’t recognized anything of the sort._ Re-read the article, especially paragraph #11, which says: “O’Connor said the Turnpike Authority does not yet know how much it will earn in lease payments, nor does it have a cost estimate for the deck.”

But perhaps most important to Fenway Center’s odds of success is the Patrick administration’s willingness to help pay for the higher costs associated with building over the turnpike, rather than on the ground. Instead of requiring Rosenthal to pay the full cost of the deck, the state would pay up to $30 million toward that additional cost.

They may not know the exact cost to build it but they do recognize that it cost more to build over the turnpike than on the ground.

bbfen

08-21-2009, 07:09 PM

Some of the endorsers weren’t on the beneficiary list, but many of those were either employed by Columbus Center, or else people hoping to hop onto the development industry gravy train.

Any credibility you had with me was just flushed down the toilet with that one sentence.

Ned Flaherty

08-22-2009, 02:01 PM

Columbus Center seesaw puts playground on hold

Boston Courant • 21 August 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Seesaw.jpg

Ned Flaherty

08-24-2009, 07:26 AM

Any credibility you had with me was just flushed down the toilet with that one sentence.

Don’t flush just yet; your conclusion lacks a rationale, so it is irrelevant.

• Perhaps you are disappointed that Columbus Center’s supporters wrote letters only after being offered inducements?
• Perhaps you are discouraged that other endorsers wrote while employed by or dependent upon the development team?
• Are you dismayed that people seeking work in development appeared during the pep rally?
• Are you frustrated that the mayor ignored each letter writer’s identity and affiliation, and merely tallied each piece of paper as a “yes” or “no” vote?
• Are you disgusted that unsigned, anonymous pieces of paper were treated as legitimate?
• Don’t you think it’s fraudulent to count the same letter more than once?

After missing hundreds of public meetings, did you care what the public comments were?

Did you pull the comment letters and review them yourself?

What did you see?

Ned Flaherty

08-24-2009, 07:56 AM

. . . My discussion was that building on land is cheaper than building on just air right.

No, your argument is not “building on land” versus “building on just air right” [sic]._ Your argument has always been that you refuse to believe that Columbus Center’s TDC (Total Development Cost) is less in the air than it would be on the ground._ You’ve offered no proof, only your insistence and your belief.

Every single time you resume this argument, you ignore the meaning of TDC._ You are doing that again by substituting “building” for TDC.

The facts and figures in the public records already proved that CC’s TDC is less in air than it would be on land._ Those facts and figures were posted in this forum.

You switch to new vocabulary every time you want to re-start the same old argument, but you’re not fooling anybody (except perhaps yourself).

When comparing CC’s air-based-TDC vs. its land-based-TDC, it is irrelevant to consider other projects at other locations._ Doing that just introduces irrelevant factors that obscure the answer.

. . . One Kenmore is on 50% land while CC is on 5% and that they estimated One Kenmore is more expensive than CC.

Firstly, One Kenmore no longer exists._ Over one year ago, the original One Kenmore proposal was re-proposed as Fenway Center._ Re-read both proposals, because it was far more than just a name change.

Secondly, you can not intelligently argue that “Fenway is more expensive than Columbus” as you wrote._ Fenway’s gross square footage is 800,000 square feet, but Columbus’ is 1,526,700._ Fenway’s most recent estimate is $450 million (Boston Globe, 20 August 2009) but Columbus’ is $850 million (Boston Herald, 11 July 2009). Size and cost are about half at Fenway of what they are at Columbus.

Thirdly, one project costing more than a different project is irrelevant, because comparing land-based percentages from different sites doesn’t prove anything about the original argument that you resurrect every few months:_ how CC’s TDC is less in air than on land._ That argument requires comparing the same project, to itself, in air versus on land._ In the context of that argument, comparing different projects, sizes, and locations is meaningless.

. . . I'm focusing on the date they have given which is what we are discussing.

No, we are not discussing dates._ Dates are irrelevant to the original question of how CC’s TDC is less in air than on land.

. . . They may not know the exact cost to build it but they do recognize that it cost more to build over the turnpike than on the ground.

Untrue, at both sites._ At Columbus, I already posted the arithmetic that proved CC’s TDC is less in air than on land._ At Fenway, no one knows the TDC yet, so trying to move this argument to that site is pointless, because the cost data needed to resolve it won’t be available for a few more years.

You should decide exactly what it is that you want to argue, and on what bases, before you post any further._ And if you do try to start this argument again, post your proof, with supporting arithmetic and applicable logic, and show your work.

So far, the only thing you have proven is that you do not know what TDC is, or what it includes, or how to compare it, or what the public records show as the Columbus TDC.

KentXie

08-24-2009, 09:49 AM

No, your argument is not “building on land” versus “building on just air right” [sic]._ Your argument has always been that you refuse to believe that Columbus Center’s TDC (Total Development Cost) is less in the air than it would be on the ground._ You’ve offered no proof, only your insistence and your belief.

You offer no proof either. Show me the TDC of a CC size development on land and compare it to the cost of CC. So shut you yap about my beliefs until you can prove yours.

Thirdly, one project costing more than a different project is irrelevant, because comparing land-based percentages from different sites doesn’t prove anything about the original argument that you resurrect every few months:_ how CC’s TDC is less in air than on land._ That argument requires comparing the same project, to itself, in air versus on land._ In the context of that argument, comparing different projects, sizes, and locations is meaningless.

You have yet to show me this example. Your argument is meaningless as well then.

Untrue, at both sites._ At Columbus, I already posted the arithmetic that proved CC’s TDC is less in air than on land._ At Fenway, no one knows the TDC yet, so trying to move this argument to that site is pointless, because the cost data needed to resolve it won’t be available for a few more years.

Read what I wrote and the quote I quoted. I said that although the government does not know the exact cost of the deck, they acknowledged that it cost more than a project built over land. Read! instead of putting words in my mouth.

Ned Flaherty

08-24-2009, 10:39 AM

You offer no proof either . . . You have yet to show me this example . . .

On the contrary, the proof has been given and referred to many times._ It’s been available to you for over a year._ Re-read the proof.

■ My post #1278 on 21 August 2008
■ My post #1411 on 28 September 2008
■ My post #1435 on 29 September 2008
■ My post #1450 on 05 October 2008

. . . I said that although the government does not know the exact cost of the deck, they acknowledged that it cost more than a project built over land.

No, that’s not what you wrote._ This is what you wrote.
. . . They may not know the exact cost to build it but they do recognize that it cost more to build over the turnpike than on the ground.

You continue to fool yourself by repeating your original mistake:_ you forget (or never learned to begin with) that “cost to build” is not the same as “TDC (Total Development Cost)”._ You will remain confused until you stop treating these two different costs as exactly the same._ Learn the difference, because therein lies the answer.

bostonbred

08-24-2009, 02:28 PM

^*^^ THIS is being my point two. And why I am saying Mr Ned F. SPANKING your bear BOTTUMS like leathermans in knotty bar!!!

Patriots_1228

08-24-2009, 03:43 PM

Bear? SHIT! Where?!!

bbfen

08-24-2009, 05:20 PM

Don’t flush just yet; your conclusion lacks a rationale, so it is irrelevant.

• Perhaps you are disappointed that Columbus Center’s supporters wrote letters only after being offered inducements?
• Perhaps you are discouraged that other endorsers wrote while employed by or dependent upon the development team?
• Are you dismayed that people seeking work in development appeared during the pep rally?
• Are you frustrated that the mayor ignored each letter writer’s identity and affiliation, and merely tallied each piece of paper as a “yes” or “no” vote?
• Are you disgusted that unsigned, anonymous pieces of paper were treated as legitimate?
• Don’t you think it’s fraudulent to count the same letter more than once?

After missing hundreds of public meetings, did you care what the public comments were?

Did you pull the comment letters and review them yourself?

What did you see?

Has it ever occured to you that some of us know you IRL, not just on the internet? And that some of us may be useful to you IRL? Limited gains, acting like this to people.

My blasé, "oh look, it's Ned and his killer particulates again," attitude of indulgence was soured by your blanket indictment of anyone supporting this project. You're not subtle in your suggestions of outright bribery. Since you're upfront about who you are, if I was one of the people being accused of this, I'd ask counsel if it's actionable.

But that's not my point. My point is: who wouldn't want to benefit from something being built in their neighborhood?!? We live in a commonwealth. When what you do can benefit me, and what I do can benefit you, we're all the better.

Can I always want more than is possible? Sure, but that doesn't mean I cut my nose off to spite my face.

You ask, "What did I see?"

I saw opportunity. I saw a project to employ construction workers during a depression. I saw a neighborhood scar, erased. I saw a project that was flawed in many ways. I saw a process as broken as it's ever been. I saw a project that was good in many ways. I saw a new building. I saw opportunity.

I did not see a cure to everything you think is wrong with Boston---in your words, "public process, master planning, taxation, elected officials, bribery, public subsidies to private profiteers, and much more"---but then again, I was looking for a building, not a leprachuan riding a magic unicorn dispensing wishes with his faery wand.

I reach my conclusions based on my experience, education, understanding of history, and conversation. My best conclusion after reading your latest missives, is to join others in politely marginalizing you.

Ned Flaherty

08-24-2009, 10:02 PM

. . . Has it ever occured to you that some of us know you IRL, not just on the internet? And that some of us may be useful to you IRL? . . .

I research facts, and post them here, under my real name, for others to discuss._ It’s totally irrelevant whether some — or all — or none — of the forum members know me personally, because my messages aren’t about me, they’re about the built environment from the perspective of the 14-year-old Columbus Center._ I joined the forum only to share key facts that no one else was sharing; I did not join to find people to “use” (your word).

. . . You're not subtle in your suggestions of outright bribery. Since you're upfront about who you are, if I was one of the people being accused of this, I'd ask counsel if it's actionable. . .

No, you wouldn’t, because none of it is actionable, since all of it is true._ The culprits know they haven’t a leg to stand on, and they know that the proof is in the public records._ Consequently, not one of them has ever voiced a single objection._ They’d rather these facts not be publicized, of course, but they never object, because it’s all true.

. . . My point is: who wouldn't want to benefit from something being built in their neighborhood?!? . . .

The Columbus Center proposal is not merely “something built in a neighborhood” as you wrote.

● It represents the permanent consumption of public space, so it needs competitive bidding and Master Plan compliance.
● The owners proposed it as subsidy-free, but then sought 19 subsidies totaling $605 million, so it needs an independent public audit of all costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.
● Subsidy applications contain fraudulent claims, so they need serious investigation.

And so on.

Some forum members believe that “building something is always better than building nothing.”_ It is one of the favorite mantras of the BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) crowd._ It is a falsehood._ “Something” isn’t always better than nothing, and even when it might be, we should aspire to results far greater than the guaranteed mediocrity of just “something.”

For 14 years, I have said the Columbus Center proposal would end just as it has:_ un-permitted, un-insured, un-subsidized, un-financed, and un-built._ For 14 years, I have said that the most important thing that we, as a society, could do is get competitive bids, from qualified developers, with full financial disclosure, who comply with the Master Plan, and who do no net harm to the environment._ Had we done that 14 years ago, something beneficial would be here today._ The sooner we take those steps, the sooner something beneficial will arrive.

I have been an ardent advocate for developing all I-90 air rights citywide for 18 years. _ But I also know a pig-in-a-poke when I see one, and Columbus Center has proven to be exactly that.

. . . You ask, "What did I see?" I saw opportunity. I saw a project to employ construction workers during a depression. I saw a neighborhood scar, erased. I saw a project that was flawed in many ways. I saw a process as broken as it's ever been. I saw a project that was good in many ways. I saw a new building. . .

I saw those things, too, so perhaps we’re not so far apart in ideals._ But I also realized that none of the benefits you imagined would ever arise from this proposal._ For 14 years, I said we should either improve the current proposal, or else reject it._ Every prediction I made has come true, so I’m still advocating.

By the way, I did not ask what you saw through rose-colored glasses; I asked what you saw in the public comment letters._ That’s where I found that so many of the people cheerleading for the project were also pulling cash out of it.

. . . I was looking for a building, not a leprachuan riding a magic unicorn dispensing wishes with his faery wand. . .

You set your sights too low._ Looking for no more than just “a building” is what led you to fall head over heels, hope, pray, and get your heart broken._ Had you held out for higher standards, you would never have been surprised by how this proposal has ended._ And if enough people had collectively held out for higher standards, all this could have been avoided, and something beneficial would have been built years ago._ As it is, all we did was waste 20 years:_ 1996 - 2016 (lawsuits take time).

. . . My best conclusion . . . is to join others in politely marginalizing you.

When you choose to marginalize someone else because they brought you facts you wish they hadn’t, then you end up marginalizing yourself most of all._ I’ve been a staunch advocate of air rights re-use for 18 years, and will continue advocating for responsible development._ If you also want responsible development, then never forget the facts in the current public records, and insist on higher standards next time.

bostonbred

08-25-2009, 09:34 AM

I being mispelting BEARRn when talkking of spankd bottum. I was SORRY about this and croooked peoples who steal THE RIGHTS.

KentXie

08-25-2009, 03:32 PM

No, that’s not what you wrote._ This is what you wrote.

Are you serious? I'm sorry I didn't copy and paste what i posted earlier and thus what I wrote wasn't word to word. I don't understand why you pick on the smallest detail. Here's my point: The government i.e. the Patrick administration is giving money to the Fenway Center for the purpose of helping to cover the extra cost for building over the turnpike even though they do not know the exact cost of building over the deck. Read the article. It says there clearly.

And no I don't take you One Franklin comparison as valid. Why? One Franklin required the demolition of a building, the preservation of a facade, size is 1/5 different, the design is different which may require more or less steel and concrete to strengthen the structure. And if you are claiming that I am being nitpicky about details, I'm following your example. Although you did not say it straightforward, you criticize my comparison because it's not a "perfect match." Well let me tell you this. Your comparison isn't either.

kz1000ps

08-25-2009, 03:45 PM

KentXie, why bother? All you're doing is feeding the troll, and this thread has been a stalemate for how many months now?

bbfen

08-25-2009, 10:16 PM

KentXie, why bother? All you're doing is feeding the troll, and this thread has been a stalemate for how many months now?

kz is right. Don't know why it took me so long. I guess my moms dropped me on my head during a few of her gin-enhanced constitutionals.

KentXie

08-26-2009, 11:47 AM

KentXie, why bother? All you're doing is feeding the troll, and this thread has been a stalemate for how many months now?

I did stp. But I made one little comment and Mr. Ned Flaherty went akjfjabfjbhfabsfjabhfajbhsh. Anger issues much?

kz1000ps

08-26-2009, 04:37 PM

Did i sound angry? It wasn't my intention, nor was does this thread make me feel angry. Exasperated perhaps...

palindrome

08-26-2009, 04:38 PM

I think he was referring to Mr. Flaherty.

KentXie

08-27-2009, 12:52 AM

Yes Flaherty. Sorry if I was unclear kz.

Ned Flaherty

08-29-2009, 11:16 PM

Are you serious? I'm sorry I didn't copy and paste what i posted earlier and thus what I wrote wasn't word to word. I don't understand why you pick on the smallest detail . . .

That’s right, you don’t understand why people rely upon details._ But they are important._ Lawsuits are won or lost because of a single incorrect word or punctuation mark written by someone who does not understand or respect the leverage of language._ International disputes arise because of a single term for which a delinquent diplomat or a tired translator does not bother to learn the full definition._ People die in accidents caused by a single calculation error made by a sloppy structural engineer who does not ensure accuracy._ Details are important._ They matter.

Once again, you need to decide what it is that you think you are trying to argue about, and then work with the details related to that, and exclude other details so they don’t distract you.

. . . Here's my point: The government . . . is giving money to the Fenway Center . . . to cover the extra cost for building over the turnpike even though they do not know the exact cost of building over the deck . . .

Firstly, never before has that been your point._ For one year, you’ve been refusing to learn the definition of TDC, and denying the published arithmetic, even though it’s been known for years that Columbus Center’s TDC (Total Development Cost) in air is less than it would be on land._ I’ve provided proof; you’ve provided only beliefs._ So, no, never before did you say that the state is giving $30 million to Fenway without knowing costs._ You could never have said it before because it was first announced only last week._

But since you now want to discuss the idea of giving a $30 million gift when the cost is unknown . . .

Yes, the government decided to give $30 million to Fenway Center to pay for tunnels without knowing the cost to design, build, and insure them._ That decision — subsidizing something when its cost is unknown — is exactly where the problem arises.

The detail you missed this time is that word “extra” in your quote above._ No one has proven how much “extra” cost is involved when building Fenway Center over the Turnpike, because no one has proven Fenway’s TDC in air versus on Fenway’s TDC on land._ TDC was published for Columbus, but never for Fenway._ Until both of Fenway’s TDCs are published, no one — not you, not me, not anyone — can intelligently argue about Fenway’s “extra” cost._ As of today, Fenway’s “extra” cost is still just a myth.

Remember:_ although transportation employees claimed that the excuse for the subsidy is “extra” cost, that does not prove that any “extra” cost really exists._ The transportation employees said “extra” cost only to see how many people could be fooled by it._ They hope that no one asks them any of these 11 questions:

• What is the property’s fair market value rent?

• What is Fenway’s TDC in air?
• What would Fenway’s TDC be on land?
• Comparing Fenway’s TDC in air to TDC on land, how much cost savings is in air?
• Comparing Fenway’s TDC in air to TDC on land, how much “extra” cost is in air?
• Comparing Fenway’s TDC in air to TDC on land, what is the net difference?

• What are the project’s actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies?
• What formula was used to derive a $30 million subsidy from the “extra” TDC?

• What % of that $30 million ends up as Red Sox profit?
• What % of that $30 million ends up as New York Times profit?
• What % of that $30 million ends up as AFL-CIO profit?

KentXie:
➜ Are you aware that the transportation employees can’t answer these questions?
➜ Do you understand why they can’t answer?
➜ Are you aware that these questions embarrass those employees?
➜ Do you understand why these questions embarrass them?

I’ve already met with transportation employees, elected officials, journalists, and community leaders who understand these concepts._ If you’re a student, print out all the posts on this topic and review them with your professors; if you’re employed, review them with your managers._ Someone with “extra” time may be willing to teach this to you.

. . . And no I don't take you One Franklin comparison as valid. Why? One Franklin required the demolition of a building, the preservation of a facade, size is 1/5 different, the design is different which may require more or less steel and concrete to strengthen the structure. . .

Nearly one year ago, I mentioned One Franklin to show you one thing, and one thing only:_ that $650 million in bank loans were approved at One Franklin, but no bank loans were ever approved at Columbus._ You’re distracting yourself with irrelevant factors again, and getting all excited about project differences regarding demolition, preservation, size, design, etc._ I wasn’t comparing projects, only bank loan approvals.

. . . And if you are claiming that I am being nitpicky about details, I'm following your example. Although you did not say it straightforward, you criticize my comparison because it's not a "perfect match." Well let me tell you this. Your comparison isn't either.

I never said that you are “nitpicky [sic] about details.”_ On the contrary, you need to give details more attention if you want to understand the arguments in which you keep finding yourself.

KentXie

08-29-2009, 11:49 PM

That’s right, you don’t understand why people rely upon details._ But they are important._ Lawsuits are won or lost because of a single incorrect word or punctuation mark written by someone who does not understand or respect the leverage of language._ International disputes arise because of a single term for which a delinquent diplomat or a tired translator does not bother to learn the full definition._ People die in accidents caused by a single calculation error made by a sloppy structural engineer who does not ensure accuracy._ Details are important._ They matter.

Once again, you need to decide what it is that you think you are trying to argue about, and then work with the details related to that, and exclude other details so they don’t distract you.

Grasping at straws I see. When you lose in an argument, you attack the grammatical error. Classy fellow you are. Yeah, internet must be serious business for you. Get a life.

Firstly, never before has that been your point._ For one year, you’ve been refusing to learn the definition of TDC, and denying the published arithmetic, even though it’s been known for years that Columbus Center’s TDC (Total Development Cost) in air is less than it would be on land._ I’ve provided proof; you’ve provided only beliefs._ So, no, never before did you say that the state is giving $30 million to Fenway without knowing costs._ You could never have said it before because it was first announced only last week._

You sir do not know how to read. I made the argument clearly after I read the article and I based it off that. What part of what I said made you believe that I made that argument before that? Not only are you grasping at straws, you're putting words in my mouth.

But since you now want to discuss the idea of giving a $30 million gift when the cost is unknown . . .

Yes, the government decided to give $30 million to Fenway Center to pay for tunnels without knowing the cost to design, build, and insure them._ That decision — subsidizing something when its cost is unknown — is exactly where the problem arises.

The detail you missed this time is that word “extra” in your quote above._ No one has proven how much “extra” cost is involved when building Fenway Center over the Turnpike, because no one has proven Fenway’s TDC in air versus on Fenway’s TDC on land._ TDC was published for Columbus, but never for Fenway._ Until both of Fenway’s TDCs are published, no one — not you, not me, not anyone — can intelligently argue about Fenway’s “extra” cost._ As of today, Fenway’s “extra” cost is still just a myth.

I’ve already met with transportation employees, elected officials, journalists, and community leaders who understand these concepts._ If you’re a student, print out all the posts on this topic and review them with your professors; if you’re employed, review them with your managers._ Someone with “extra” time may be willing to teach this to you.

Main Entry: extra
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: accessory; excess
Synonyms:
added, additional, ancillary, another, auxiliary, beyond, button, extraneous, extraordinary, fresh, further, fuss*, gingerbread, gravy, ice*, in addition, in reserve, in store, inessential, lagniappe, leftover, more, needless, new, one more, optional, other, over and above, perk*, plus, redundant, reserve, spare, special, superfluous, supernumerary, supplemental, supplementary, surplus, tip, unnecessary, unneeded, unused
Antonyms:
basic, elementary, essential, fundamental, integral, necessary

And this is what was written on the article:

But perhaps most important to Fenway Center’s odds of success is the Patrick administration’s willingness to help pay for the higher costs associated with building over the turnpike, rather than on the ground. Instead of requiring Rosenthal to pay the full cost of the deck, the state would pay up to $30 million toward that additional cost.

I enjoy having you make long post only to have it backfire in your face by one quote.

Nearly one year ago, I mentioned One Franklin to show you one thing, and one thing only:_ that $650 million in bank loans were approved at One Franklin, but no bank loans were ever approved at Columbus._ You’re distracting yourself with irrelevant factors again, and getting all excited about project differences regarding demolition, preservation, size, design, etc._ I wasn’t comparing projects, only bank loan approvals.

2. Re-read my messages which explained how CC's TDC is less in air than on land:
#1278 on 21 August 2008
#1411 on 28 September 2008
#1435 on 29 September 2008
#1450 on 05 October 2008

First of all your post #1450 did not explain anything nor provide the proof so I assume that you meant #1451 (gasp an error?). Or were you doing tricks again? If you did mean post #1451, then you were the one who said that it was proof on comparing CC to another similar project.

I never said that you are “nitpicky [sic] about details.”_ On the contrary, you need to give details more attention if you want to understand the arguments in which you keep finding yourself.

Before you preach about details, maybe you should check your own posts. As mentioned before, post #1450 DID NOT provide me a proof comparing CC and another similar project on land to show the difference in cost. Regardless if you meant post #1451 or not, you made an error. Now sit down boy.

cca

08-30-2009, 11:40 AM

Can someone give these two their own thread? The screeds of text are mind numbing.

cca

Lurker

08-30-2009, 04:07 PM

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8527/270913946efa38ec3d8o.jpg (http://img41.imageshack.us/i/270913946efa38ec3d8o.jpg/)

ablarc

08-30-2009, 04:25 PM

We gotta get bostonbred to talk to Ned.

Ned Flaherty

08-30-2009, 04:47 PM

. . . I made the argument clearly after I read the article and I based it off that.

Yes, you made an argument, but no, you never delivered any proof._ All you did was repeat what someone else said.

The article mentions only a notion about an “extra” cost, but state officials admit that they don’t know the “basic” cost, don’t know the “Total Development Cost,” and don’t know the “extra” cost._ They only know that they decided to subsidize an unidentified percentage, of an unknown total, with $30 million of public dollars, to pay a private profiteer’s costs._ The arithmetic rationale supporting their attempt to subsidize doesn’t exist, and they admit it.

I should have simply posted the above 3 sentences 2 weeks ago, instead of assuming that your frantic, angry messages were sincere.

. . . I enjoy having you make long post . . .

Since you now admit that your efforts are to get other people to waste time writing long replies, you should stop posting here altogether, because that’s not the purpose of this forum, and that kind of behavior doesn’t add anything useful.

. . . your post #1450 did not explain anything nor provide the proof . . .

For 3.5 years I’ve been showing knowledgeable people the public records which prove that Columbus’ TDC is less in air than on land._ I’ve also shown people the proof that no data supports any Fenway subsidies._ The state officials who need to understand this already know about it, and didn’t have any trouble understanding it.

You reject arithmetic, don’t influence government officials, don’t approve projects, and post here only to waste other people’s time, so preparing anything else for you would be pointless.

BarbaricManchurian

08-30-2009, 05:33 PM

Ned's definitely a lawyer, only they would be unfortunately so nitpicky about the smallest details. It's a public forum, people don't have perfect grammar and memory so don't complain about it, this forum is better than the vast majority anyway.

Suffolk 83

08-30-2009, 05:47 PM

KentXie

08-30-2009, 07:46 PM

Yes, you made an argument, but no, you never delivered any proof._ All you did was repeat what someone else said.

The article mentions only a notion about an “extra” cost, but state officials admit that they don’t know the “basic” cost, don’t know the “Total Development Cost,” and don’t know the “extra” cost._ They only know that they decided to subsidize an unidentified percentage, of an unknown total, with $30 million of public dollars, to pay a private profiteer’s costs._ The arithmetic rationale supporting their attempt to subsidize doesn’t exist, and they admit it.

I should have simply posted the above 3 sentences 2 weeks ago, instead of assuming that your frantic, angry messages were sincere.

All I said was that the government, i.e. state officials acknowledge that there is an additional cost to building over air rights than over lands even thought they do not know the TDC. In other words, if the Fenway Center was built over land, there will be no additional cost, thus cheaper to be built. What you just said now is and admission to that. And yes I repeated what someone said and that someone is a state official. I'm pretty sure what he says is more accurate than you.

Since you now admit that your efforts are to get other people to waste time writing long replies, you should stop posting here altogether, because that’s not the purpose of this forum, and that kind of behavior doesn’t add anything useful.

No I am pointing out the fact that your excessive focus on grammatical errors is not the purpose of the forum. Why don't you take your own advice and keep you grammar nazi way out of the forum?

For 3.5 years I’ve been showing knowledgeable people the public records which prove that Columbus’ TDC is less in air than on land._ I’ve also shown people the proof that no data supports any Fenway subsidies._ The state officials who need to understand this already know about it, and didn’t have any trouble understanding it.

How about you start naming the officials you said you presented to. Like you said way back, don't hide behind fake names and general descriptions. Who are these knowledgeable people? Who are the state officials? And no, you still did not provide an accurate comparison. You said that the public records prove it. Why don't you post the public record here since you have so much time to write long posts?

You reject arithmetic, don’t influence government officials, don’t approve projects, and post here only to waste other people’s time, so preparing anything else for you would be pointless.

Ned, even though you may be able to be quoted in small biased newspapers, you are hardly influential. Don't pretend to be Vivien Li because you are clearly not. I doubt any of the developers listen to the nonsense you talk about because if they did, they would have considered about addressing the pollution. Yet from all the articles, I found barely anything about the UFP poisoning you are talking about and how the developers are going to deal with it. You are a figurehead, nothing more.

And one more thing. You only post in one thread. I've provided construction updates, news update, and information from the on-going expansion from NEU. I'm not here to change Boston. That's what voting is for. I'm not here to lobby like you. This forum is to provide updates and information about projects. You are only able to contribute in one thread. Before you try saying that I have done nothing constructive, why don't you try exploring other threads. You are hardly productive in this forum.

AmericanFolkLegend

08-30-2009, 10:18 PM

Unsubscribe

BarbaricManchurian

08-30-2009, 11:12 PM

This thread is just pure comedy! Keep at it, Ned Flaherty and KentXie!

Ned Flaherty

08-31-2009, 08:08 AM

I wanna know on average how much time it takes you Ned to write your average post. 'Cuz it seems like it takes a while and I just wanna know just how big a loser/crazy you are. Normal ppl don't have time to do this stuff, which just destroys your credibility and your cause. . .

So you are unable to do what another person is able to do?_ That does not mean that the other person is a “loser”, “crazy”, “abnormal”, or “not credible” as you wrote._ Justifying one’s own inadequacies by labeling other people negatively is simply childish.

My goal is only to post previously unknown facts from public records for public discussion, so my “cause” isn’t “destroyed” just because you think it’s too much work, or just because I can do it more quickly than you can imagine.

Diligent posting doesn’t destroy credibility nearly as much as hiding behind a cartoon name.

Ned Flaherty

08-31-2009, 10:13 AM

. . . state officials acknowledge that there is an additional cost to building over air rights than over lands even thought they do not know the TDC.

No._ State officials don’t acknowledge any extra cost._ They only imply it._ Those two words mean very different things._ Officials can’t acknowledge extra cost until they can prove it, and they admit that they have no data that proves it._ So all they are able to do is imply it, and hope no one notices.

. . . your excessive focus on grammatical errors is not the purpose of the forum . . .

When you make an error that causes or perpetuates an argument, I do mention it, because that’s the only way for you to see how the argument started, and the only way to resolve the confusion._ I agree with you that grammar is not the purpose of the forum._ That’s why among hundreds of your errors, I mention only the ones that are unavoidable.

How about you start naming the officials you said you presented to . . .

At the city, state, and federal levels, I coordinate with agency staff members, elected officials, and developers._ So that I can continue doing that, I never speak for them, and I never name them; instead, I let them make their own announcements whenever they are ready._ But this forum isn’t about who I speak with or what we say to each other; it’s about discussions of facts from public records about the built environment._ Everything I predicted for Columbus Center is gradually coming true, and is appearing in public records, and is getting reported._ Be patient.

Why don't you post the public record here since you have so much time to write long posts?

Good question._ There are 3 reasons that the public records of Columbus Center are not posted here.

#1:_ Software • The forum software is designed and configured for a small number of people to make quick posts that contain short comments; it has no features to scan, store, index, and search 14 years worth of public records.

#2:_ Staff • Even if the forum purchased appropriate software, no forum member is ready, willing and able to manage the 16,000 pages, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.

#3:_ Venue • If the lobbyists, hobbyists, students, brokers, lawyers, architects, laborers, etc. from this forum want all public records on-line, then they need to either get government agencies to do that, or else provide the funding and the staffing to do that themselves._ No other forum member has pulled the records for Columbus Center, or shown any appreciation of the value in doing that, so any such effort would probably be wasted here._ I will continue giving government employees, elected officials, and journalists all the public records that they need._ But I am not willing to undertake such a massive effort for such a small forum where the owner/operator has no software and where the members have no interest.

. . . Ned, even though you may be able to be quoted in small biased newspapers, you are hardly influential.

Untrue._ I contribute to, am quoted in, and/or write for media outlets of all sizes and persuasions, not just a “small biased” group as you wrote._ The media outlets that have relied on me for information include: Banker & Tradesman, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, South End News, Back Bay Sun, Boston Courant, Fenway News, WFXT-25, WHDH-5, WBZ-4, WBUR-90.9, and others._ But my sphere of influence is really elsewhere; the media just report the results of decisions, not how they get made.

. . . I doubt any of the developers listen to the nonsense you talk about because if they did, they would have considered about addressing the pollution.

Wrong, on all 3 counts._ Firstly, only the development industry still treats the public health risk of exposure to particulate matter as “nonsense” like you do._ Elsewhere, it’s accepted science._ Secondly, developers listen far more intently than you realize; but they don’t admit it so they can publicly stay in denial as long as possible._ Thirdly, developers have known about particulate matter health risks for years, but they will continue procrastinating as long as the public lets them, because they fear that doing something might reduce profits.

. . . Yet from all the articles, I found barely anything about the UFP poisoning you are talking about and how the developers are going to deal with it . . .

If you aren’t finding information about particulate matter, then you need better search skills, you need better search tools, or you simply aren’t trying hard enough._ At city, state, and federal levels, it is becoming more regulated, not less._ Also, it is becoming more publicized._ Be patient, and you will eventually hear what has happened on this topic; however, so long as you get your news from this forum or from developers (who are always the last to talk about public health risks and mitigation), then you’ll always be the last to find out.

. . . You are a figurehead, nothing more . . .

Forum members don’t know who I talk to, what we say, or what gets decided, and will never know those things, so it is impossible for any forum member to accurately say what impacts I have, or when I have them._ But you should never interpret your lack of knowledge about what I do as proof that nothing is happening.

I post news here only after it’s in public records and only after it’s announced by somebody else, so this forum is the last place for you to find out what’s going on.

But I was the first to notify the media:
. . . that the developer paid the BRA to secretly record the public meetings (2003).
. . . that a project manager had fraudulent deals for many years (2004).
. . . that managers of this “subsidy-free” proposal were seeking enormous subsidies (2005).
. . . that California bought control of the project 3.5 years ago (2006).
. . . that the claimed bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for (2007).
. . . that California never bought the required performance bonds (2008).
. . . that Mass. requires Fenway Center to itemize and mitigate public health risks (2008).

Most of the news I uncover is reported without my name; my name gets mentioned only when I am part of the news, not just for discovering news._ But I am far more involved than just the “figurehead” that you imagine.

. . . And one more thing. You only post in one thread . . . You are only able to contribute in one thread . . .

Untrue._ You obviously don’t know that I also post in other threads such as International Hotel and Fenway Center._ But you’re distracted by your own illogical assumption that the number of threads someone posts in is somehow important._ It isn’t._ Quantity is unrelated (in either direction) to quality._ Quality stands alone.

. . . I'm not here to lobby like you . . . You are hardly productive in this forum.

Untrue, on both counts._ I am not here to lobby._ I joined when I saw that most forum members were posting incorrect information, and posting lots of rumors, but rarely posting any sources for their assumptions._ I joined only to post new facts from government records for public discussion.

Many members do not like those facts, and a few members do not understand them, and no forum members are willing or able to pull the same public records themselves._ But I have provided the forum with more facts from more public records than anyone else, so if you want to label someone as unproductive, skip me, and start with the BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) cheerleaders.

bostonbred

08-31-2009, 10:24 AM

ONCE AGAIN Mr Ned F. crushing you with waite of the logics!!! IF you are pic=king the CARTOON names you are NOT beeen picking the smart carton like MR WISSARD or maybe TOBYWANTNOWBY. you are the YOGI BAERS or lookinn like theSPONGINGBOBs full of unatural holes for amusement of OTHERS. Score: Mr F. 10, Dumbo helefants 0!!!

BarbaricManchurian

08-31-2009, 02:17 PM

Good question._ There are 3 reasons that the public records of Columbus Center are not posted here.

#1:_ Software • The forum software is designed and configured for a small number of people to make quick posts that contain short comments; it has no features to scan, store, index, and search 14 years worth of public records.

#2:_ Staff • Even if the forum purchased appropriate software, no forum member is ready, willing and able to manage the 16,000 pages, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.

#3:_ Venue • If the lobbyists, hobbyists, students, brokers, lawyers, architects, laborers, etc. from this forum want all public records on-line, then they need to either get government agencies to do that, or else provide the funding and the staffing to do that themselves._ No other forum member has pulled the records for Columbus Center, or shown any appreciation of the value in doing that, so any such effort would probably be wasted here._ I will continue giving government employees, elected officials, and journalists all the public records that they need._ But I am not willing to undertake such a massive effort for such a small forum where the owner/operator has no software and where the members have no interest.

www.mediafire.com

www.megaupload.com

www.skydrive.live.com

www.rapidshare.com

I'm presuming they are in PDF format, like most public records. Anyway if you are going to post here you might as well show the records, otherwise we will have to presume that most of your claims are unsubstantiated hearsay without the textual proof.

bbfen

08-31-2009, 04:49 PM

... if you are going to post here you might as well show the records, otherwise we will have to presume that most of your claims are unsubstantiated hearsay without the textual proof.

bbfen likes this.

KentXie

08-31-2009, 10:52 PM

No._ State officials don’t acknowledge any extra cost._ They only imply it._ Those two words mean very different things._ Officials can’t acknowledge extra cost until they can prove it, and they admit that they have no data that proves it._ So all they are able to do is imply it, and hope no one notices.

If they merely imply, they would not have put forth the 30 million already. Why would they put in 30 million dollars on implication? If they were wrong, they would have wasted 30 million dollars of taxpayer money.

When you make an error that causes or perpetuates an argument, I do mention it, because that’s the only way for you to see how the argument started, and the only way to resolve the confusion._ I agree with you that grammar is not the purpose of the forum._ That’s why among hundreds of your errors, I mention only the ones that are unavoidable.

Sure you do? That makes sense since BostonBred clearly has the best grammar in the forum. You only use it as an argument when you struggle to respond and you don't use it against those who seem to be on your side. Or are you saying what BostonBred's posts belong on the forum. Hmmmmm?

At the city, state, and federal levels, I coordinate with agency staff members, elected officials, and developers._ So that I can continue doing that, I never speak for them, and I never name them; instead, I let them make their own announcements whenever they are ready._ But this forum isn’t about who I speak with or what we say to each other; it’s about discussions of facts from public records about the built environment._ Everything I predicted for Columbus Center is gradually coming true, and is appearing in public records, and is getting reported._ Be patient.

But what have you done that was beneficial to the neighborhood? If you were as "influential" as you say, what benefits have you brought? If your claim that you stopped the CC development, a claim you made a few months ago, was true, not only had you left the canyon as it is, you ended up stopping foundation work mid way through. Your work as caused the mess at the site and now requires money fro mthe Turnpike, money from taxpayers, to clean up the mess. Your "influence" left the site worse today than it was before and much worse had it been built.

Untrue._ I contribute to, am quoted in, and/or write for media outlets of all sizes and persuasions, not just a “small biased” group as you wrote._ The media outlets that have relied on me for information include: Banker & Tradesman, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, South End News, Back Bay Sun, Boston Courant, Fenway News, WFXT-25, WHDH-5, WBZ-4, WBUR-90.9, and others._ But my sphere of influence is really elsewhere; the media just report the results of decisions, not how they get made.

Most of the reports involved you saying the same exact thing each time, that you are unhappy with the project. I won't be surprised if most people's image of you is that of a cranky old man.

Wrong, on all 3 counts._ Firstly, only the development industry still treats the public health risk of exposure to particulate matter as “nonsense” like you do._ Elsewhere, it’s accepted science._ Secondly, developers listen far more intently than you realize; but they don’t admit it so they can publicly stay in denial as long as possible._ Thirdly, developers have known about particulate matter health risks for years, but they will continue procrastinating as long as the public lets them, because they fear that doing something might reduce profits.

You must be a fool to think developers listens to a single person like you intently. While they made an effort to recycle ground water, they did not do anything about the UFP pollution, even if they already knew about it. Don't kid yourself.

Most of the news I uncover is reported without my name; my name gets mentioned only when I am part of the news, not just for discovering news._ But I am far more involved than just the “figurehead” that you imagine.

I'm going to take your stance and say if your name is not mentioned with it, then there's no proof that you did it. I could say the same and you will not be able to find out if it's true or not.

Untrue._ You obviously don’t know that I also post in other threads such as International Hotel and Fenway Center._ But you’re distracted by your own illogical assumption that the number of threads someone posts in is somehow important._ It isn’t._ Quantity is unrelated (in either direction) to quality._ Quality stands alone.

Barely. What you posted in those sites are practically repeats on what you said here about UFP. Good job on the copy and paste.

Many members do not like those facts, and a few members do not understand them, and no forum members are willing or able to pull the same public records themselves._ But I have provided the forum with more facts from more public records than anyone else, so if you want to label someone as unproductive, skip me, and start with the BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) cheerleaders.

Then take your own advice and don't label me as someone who post to waste people's time.

FSUViking

08-31-2009, 11:40 PM

I don't know if anybody listens to WEEI, but Ned reminds me of a caller called Frank from Gloucester. He keeps insane notes in his "WEEI Notebook" and calls the station to say things like "On May 27th, 2006, Michael Holley said the Red Sox.......and you were wrong!"

Ned reminds me of him, referring people to the exact post # from like two years ago, down the very sentence. I appreciate facts and attention to detail as much as the next guy, but Jesus Christ man....time to get out of the basement and get some fresh air and step away from the Internet.

I've never seen anybody who takes what's said on a message board as seriously as this guy does.

tobyjug

09-01-2009, 10:49 AM

My stylistic advice is: go for more "Butchy from the Cape", less of the "Frank from Gloucester".

SeamusMcFly

09-01-2009, 11:23 AM

Reminds me more of Big O and all the other clowns who are actually on the show and think they know more than the entire sporting world put together.... fans, coaches, players the whole lot.

Caller your points are completely off base and wrong because they don't jive with my ideas, and my ideas as we all know are law unquestioned.

Basically what my problem with this thread is. Many people expressing their views, theories, and interpretations about the whole deal as if what they are saying is the unquestionable truth, and there is no argument because "I read about it."

When someone states an opinion, you do not say "No you are wrong and here's why", you say "I disagree and here's why". Why? Because they are opinions and not facts. I think this is what pisses most people off here about your posts Ned. Other than that, they are typically informative. Although saying a bunch of media outlets "relied" on you is a bit egocentric. They used you as a source sure, but there are other sources, such as the meetings and the mountains of pages you have read. They more used you as an unpaid contributor so they didn't have to do the work themselves moreso than they relied on you. That sort of implies they would never have reported any of it without you. Or been as wrong as the rest of us without your talents.

I think I made a similar metaphor before, but just because your read Webster's front to back, you do not know everything there is to know about the English language.

FSUViking

09-01-2009, 05:35 PM

Well most fans actually know about 10% of what they actually think they know. The average sports fans intellect comes from Madden and fantasy sports. I'm a huge sports fan, play Madden, and play fantasy baseball & football, but I don't infuse the three together and think I'm the world's greatest armchair GM and call sports talk with hair-brained ideas. I'm not smarter than Bill Belichick, Theo Epstein, Doc Rivers, etc so I don't call and pretend to be.

The guys behind the mics aren't the end all be all either, but they certainly have vastly more tools at their disposal than an XBox and a TV in which to form their opinions.

Anyways.....I've steered this ship well of course. Back to Ned.....

Ned Flaherty

09-02-2009, 10:22 PM

First phase of Columbus Center cleanup set for September completion

MTA says trees won’t be replaced on Cortes Street until
‘decision has been made about the project’

South End News • By Staff Writer Ashley Rigazio • September 2, 2009

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Site-102-Sep-2009.jpg

The Columbus Center site as of Tuesday, Sept. 1.
Photo: Ned Flaherty

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) is spending $100,000 to clean up the site of the delayed Columbus Center development, and officials expect the first phase of safety and aesthetic improvements to be complete by the end of the month. But, don’t expect to see trees lining Cortes Street quite yet.

“The cleanup work should be done in a few weeks,” MTA spokesperson Adam Hurtubise told the South End News. But, he added, “We’re not going to be replacing the trees until a decision has been made about the project or the parcel.”

Hurtubise did not know when that decision would be made.

Construction on the project—which is largely owned by California investors and has several consultants attached to it—came to a halt in spring 2008, but debris and fencing still lingered, and damage to the area’s greenery, including the destruction of 24 mature trees on Cortes Street, was already done.

The MTA’s six-week cleanup effort aims to level the site, plant grass, and remove chain-link fencing and leftover construction materials. The $100,000 used to clean the area will be paid for upfront by the MTA, which hopes to recover the funds from developers in the future.

Both South End residents and politicians have become increasingly critical of the 14-year-old proposed development, but many are encouraged by the MTA cleanup under way.

Resident Ned Flaherty, a neighbor of the site, has been studying the Columbus Center development since its conception, accumulating 15,000 pages of public records on the complicated proposal.

“It’s nice that someone finally is starting to restore these seven acres,” said Flaherty. While encouraged by the MTA’s work, Flaherty noted that a majority of the restoration has yet to be assigned or scheduled and offered a less-than-enthusiastic prediction.

“The most likely outcome is that either the restoration will never finish, or else Massachusetts taxpayers will have to pay for California’s damage,” said Flaherty.

When contacted by South End News after the MTA said it would move forward with cleanup efforts two weeks ago, Carolyn Spicer, a spokesperson for the development team, had no comment. Efforts to reach the development team for comment on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

On Tuesday, 3rd Suffolk State Representative Aaron Michlewitz gave the MTA credit for taking a first step toward addressing residents’ safety and aesthetic concerns.

“I’m very happy the Turnpike has decided to step up to the plate and start some of the reconstruction of the area, especially along Cortes Street,” said Michlewitz, noting that cleanup at the site was one of his “primary objectives” upon taking office in June.

“It’s a shame that it’s come to this and the developer hasn’t decided to move forward with the reconstruction of the area,” he continued. “It’s been a blighted area. … To be stuck in this limbo for such a long time has really been a strain on the community and the people who live around the area.”

Still, local politicians believe proper and timely development of the site can stimulate economic growth and generate tax revenues. Menino commented on the project following a campaign stop at Rosie’s Place on Monday.

“We’re trying to either get it moving or replace all the stuff that was there,” he said. “We’ve got to get all the players together—the state, the city, the feds. This is a good economic opportunity for us.”

Menino said that the project could possibly be phased in and completed on a smaller scale than originally planned. He added that developers must “take into consideration the folks who live there and what kind of effect it will have on their quality of life. That’s very important, because they’re coming into their neighborhood. … There should be minimal obstruction.”

Michlewitz said his beleaguered constituents living in the area are just happy to see any progress. But, he stressed, this is just a first step toward making the Columbus Center site viable.

“My theory has always been that it’s time to start from square one on this development, and it’s time to look at other development to go in there,” said Michlewitz. “While the community has spent lots of time and energy on this development, it is obviously going nowhere the way it stands right now.”

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Site-202-Sep-2009.jpg

Things haven’t turned out quite as developers, neighbors, and local pols had hoped thus far at the Columbus Center site.
Photo: Ned Flaherty

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=95890

KentXie

09-02-2009, 10:38 PM

Somehow, if a competitive bid does happen like Ned hopes for, I am not very optimistic about it if Menino remains as the mayor. What are the chances it will end up like Hayward Place, with Menino picking a developer he favors and end up doing nothing?

JohnAKeith

09-02-2009, 11:05 PM

“My theory has always been that it’s time to start from square one on this development, and it’s time to look at other development to go in there,” said Michlewitz.

Sounds like Aaron's on board for building over the Mass Turnpike. Glad to hear it! That makes two state reps. Marty Walz is on record as saying she supports building there, too.

Justin7

09-03-2009, 09:59 AM

Does anyone admit to being against building there?

palindrome

09-06-2009, 09:43 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/MKiller/Buseys.gif

Patriots_1228

09-06-2009, 12:38 PM

Must suck to live in the South End, between Ned and BostonBred.....

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 12:07 AM

I have never once heard a figure for the subsidy being as high as $605 million, could you please post some semblance of a citation. . .

No, of course you never heard this figure, because there’s no such thing as “the subsidy.”_ Columbus Center’s owners split their requests into 19 subsidies across city, state, and federal agencies, which helps hide the total loss to taxpayers._ So far, no government agency or news outlet has ever reported the grand total.

For most of 2009, the 14-year tally has sat at 19 different requests totaling $605 million.

The Beal Companies and The Related Companies brag that their specialty is getting their private projects paid for with public dollars._ Since taking control of the proposal over one year ago, they have continued “exploring all options” (Boston Courant, 23 January 2009), which means trying to get taxpayers to fund their costs and profits._ The reason they never published the Financial Viability Review that they promised for 15 October 2008, then 15 November, then 31 December, then 8 April 2009, is that the project is fiscally distressed and they need more taxpayer dollars before it can be viable.

The subsidies are of two major types:_ loans repaid within 50 years (tax-free bond loans, low-interest construction loans), and gifts never repaid at all (property discounts, property tax breaks, luxury housing grants, state income tax breaks, utility grants, work tax credits, equipment write-offs, wage tax credits, energy study grants, community development tax credits, and economic stimulus grants).

The owners have never disclosed the total public money that they are seeking, from whom, and for what purposes._ So 19 subsidies worth $605 million is only an interim tally. It is rising.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Subsidies-1.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f236/Ned_Flaherty/Subsidies-2.jpg

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 12:10 AM

Are corporate tax breaks breaking the bank?

Forum members Tocoto, Bobby Digital, Barbaric Manchurian, Czsz, Denatlanta, DarkFenX, Stellarfun, WHighlander, Palindrome, AWood91, Pelhamhall, John A. Keith, Suffolk83, Tobyjug, Kennedy, Seamus McFly, and Jass have collectively endorsed the building of Columbus Center, immediately, unfettered, and regardless of cost, some arguing that it doesn’t matter how many decades taxpayers would be burdened paying off the bonds, loans, grants, income tax breaks, and property tax breaks needed to create the temporary jobs for the out-of-state construction workers.

The following article explains how that argument fails, who usually makes it, and why, and who usually falls for it, and why.

Are corporate tax breaks breaking the bank?

South End News • Shirley Kressel • August 31, 2009

Greg LeRoy’s 2005 book, The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation, should be required reading for every public official, and every taxpayer, voter and citizen. Providing detailed documentation, LeRoy exposes the “job creation” game, in which ruthless corporations shake down our governments, demanding public subsidies to do things they’d do anyway, and politicians eagerly hand over these so-called “business incentives” so they can claim credit for doing things the market would do anyway. American municipalities lose over $50 billion a year in this corporate welfare sink. Yet, these giveaways “create” or “retain” few living-wage jobs, and often, job numbers decrease.

Back in 1979, Robert Goodman wrote a book, The Last Entrepreneurs: America’s Regional Wars for Jobs and Dollars, showing how government competition to lure companies with subsidies had replaced private-sector corporate competition. This race to the bottom, as Goodman warned and LeRoy documents, has resulted in the loss of an economically secure middle-class, a degraded environment, wholesale deregulation of private corporations, a loss of transparency and public accountability in disposition of public resources, and a chronic shortage of funding for the public goods and services, such as transportation infrastructure and public education, that truly do attract and support businesses-as well as residents.

How has such a poisonous ideology flourished to the point where no politician dares to speak against it? As LeRoy explains, it is rooted in urban “white flight” and the prevalent image of abandoned, disadvantaged “inner cities.” The perception of urban “blight” has been used to justify a wholesale giveaway of our public money, land and laws to big corporations, by promising jobs to workers and glamorous legacies to self-serving public officials. Since then, the exportation of manufacturing and even white-collar jobs to underdeveloped countries with very low wages and no protections for either workers or the environment has broadened the job shortage nationally, so that the promise of employment is a magic key to the government coffers.

LeRoy, the founder of Good Jobs First, an organization that aims to promote corporate and government accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families, documents the history of the great American jobs scam, starting in the 1930s with the Fantus Factory Locating Service, a consulting company advising factories about site location based on its analysis of local transportation, labor and materials markets, and taxes. From this modest start, a huge industry has grown for guiding corporations in inveigling and intimidating cities and states to compete with each other in the hopes of “landing the business” and “creating jobs.”

The book exposes the array of arcane subsidy schemes devised to transfer public assets to corporations, including zoning exemptions, eminent domain takings, regulatory waivers, tax-free loans, outright cash grants, property and income tax waivers of various sorts, free public land and site preparation, publicly paid utility services, customized public works, privatized public jobs, publicly subsidized health insurance, etc. Most of them are made invisible to the average citizen and even to the seasoned investigator. They are typically structured to shield politicians from public accountability as they wreck communities to create “business-friendly” climates. It’s an astounding narrative of brazen lying and economic thuggery, and yet, the trend has not only continued, but accelerated-regardless of political party.

Business leaders, as LeRoy quotes them, are well aware that public subsidies are not important factors in their location and hiring decisions. Paul O’Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and President George W. Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury, is cited thus: “[As a businessman] I never made an investment decision based on the Tax Code...[I]f you are giving money away I will take it. If you want to give me inducements for something I am going to do anyway, I will take it. But good business people do not do things because of inducements, they do it because they can see that they are going to be able to earn the cost of capital out of their own intelligence and organization of resources.”

Many politicians also know these deals are not “incentives” but unnecessary giveaways. LeRoy quotes New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who inherited Rudolph Giuliani’s financial crisis, which was caused in part by the latter’s years of resource-sapping “job retention” deals; Bloomberg renounced a $14 million package granted to his own company, saying, “Any company that makes a decision as to where they are going to be based on the tax rate is a company that won’t be around very long ... If you’re down to that incremental margin you don’t have a business.”

Governor Deval Patrick, when he was running for office, acknowledged that, “A business that makes a decision on the basis of a tax break alone, that’s a business that’s on its way out of business.” But when asked what governors and legislatures should do to promote business, Patrick said, “This notion that it takes a tax break, a tax concession, to attract a business — you want that in your box as a closer.” This was his “fine print,” to leave him room for politically self-aggrandizing business subsidies, and indeed, the state corporate welfare empire has only grown under Patrick. Instead of keeping his promise to close a set of corporate loopholes that cost Massachusetts $500 million annually, he left half of them in place and cut the corporate tax rate, to leave us with no net benefit, arguing, along with our benighted legislators, that incentives are needed to attract industries. The result will be a permanent overall tax revenue loss, and the corporations will simply devise new loopholes to make up for the few he closed.

Finally, LeRoy provides a dozen recommendations for reform to reverse this self-destructive policy and manage private growth and public finances equitably and efficiently. Reform #1, of course, is “Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure” — transparency, a commodity in short supply at the state and municipal level.

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=city_streets&sc2=&sc3=&id=95787

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 12:27 AM

You are a lying egomaniac. . . the full 16,000 pages of boring public records which you haven't quoted from at all to support your positions . . .

That is untrue._ Research and think before you write and call names._ I often quote, and I often cite._ Before you wrote that I “haven’t quoted at all” from public records, you should have re-read these 135 citations in the Columbus Center thread.

Date, Post #

2007
26 August, #232
27 August , #248
28 August , #256, 268
29 August , #283

2008
30 March, #455
30 March, #463
30 March, #466
31 March, #479
31 March, #486
1 April, #498, 500, 520, 535, 543, 544
3 April, #617, 640, 660, 666
4 April, #668
7 April, #684, 685
10 April, #721
15 April, #746
22 April, #839
23 April, #842, 846, 899
6 May, #935
7 May, #950, 952, 954, 958
9 May, #967
10 May, #987
11 May, #990, 1004
12 May, #1008
26 May, #1018
27 May, #1030
29 May, #1041
29 May, #1052
30 May, #1054, 1061, 1062
8 July, # 1112
11 July, #1125
13 July, #1137
14 July, #1138, 1144
15 July, #1147, 1149
09 August, #1208
20 August, #1237
21 August, #1261, 1278
1 September, #1318, 1319
7 September, #1340
9 September, #1359
11 September, #1384
23 September, #1385
25 September, #1390, 1395
26 September, #1402
28 September, #1413, 1414
29 September, #1418, 1424, 1432, 1441
30 September, #1445
5 October , #1450, 1452
6 October , #1457
8 October , #1474
13 October, #1480, 1481, 1486
14 October, #1492
26 October, #1499
29 October, #1502
06 November, #1511
14 November, #1512
16 November, #1515
27 November, #1519
29 November, #1525
7 December, #1531
31 December, #1538, 1539, 1540

2009
7 January , #1547
9 January , #1557
16 January, #1564
25 January, #1578, 1581
26 January, #1587
28 January, #1601, 1602, 1605, 1606
29 January, #1609
30 January, #1620
5 February, #1635, 1646
16 February, #1670
8 April, #1677
10 April, #1690
24 April, #1701
29 April, #1731
1 June, # 1774
4 June, # 1785, 1787
5 June, # 1795
6 June, # 1804, 1806, 1809
7 June, # 1812
1 June, # 1815
18 June, #1829, 1830
25 June, #1832
11 July, #1834
16 July, #1835, 1836
21 July, #1850
1 August, #1868, 1870
6 August, #1895
18 August , #901, 1906
20 August, #1928
21 August, #1933, 1938

www.mediafire.com
www.megaupload.com
www.skydrive.live.com
www.rapidshare.com

You ignored the specifications. • None of the services you listed above can host all 16,000 public records — for any Windows/MacIntosh user — to search — browse — read — and download — as needed._ Re-check the software and service specifications.

. . . I'm presuming they are in PDF format, like most public records . . .

You presume incorrectly. • The vast majority of Columbus Center public records were never released in any electronic format, the custodians aren’t obligated to convert them to electronic format, and among the few pages that are in PD Format, most are not text-searchable, a necessity for an on-line library of public records.

You don’t appreciate indexing. • Each page of each document has to be read — and fully understood — before it can be indexed in a useful manner._ That requires far more skill, experience, and labor than just tagging Flickr photos “my dog” and “our cat.”

ArchBoston.org doesn’t have adequate software, qualified staff, or the end-to-end funding needed to obtain, scan, and index all these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.

But that’s not as big a loss as it seems.

Most forum members haven’t even read the entire thread yet._ (If they had, they wouldn’t repeat questions that have already been asked and answered.)_ Stellarfun echoed most members’ attitudes best when he wrote on 7 May 2008:_ “I have neither the time, diligence, or frankly the interest, to peruse thousands of pages of contract and lease documents.”

. . . show the records, otherwise we will have to presume that most of your claims are unsubstantiated hearsay without the textual proof.

Your logic is poor. • All the records are readily available to everybody._ Anyone who reaches categorical conclusions — without reviewing any of the available evidence — is a fool._ Your threatening not to believe me is even more foolish, because I did not join the forum to persuade anyone of anything; I joined to post whatever facts other members clearly don’t have, and to observe and record the reactions._ Most foolish of all are the cheerleaders who, every time Columbus Center hits a new low, start crying, “Halt the discussion! Stop the posts! Lock the thread!” as though silencing the news could change the reality.

. . . despite your doomsday predictions about UFPs, you have not moved away from the Mass Pike canyon, suggesting that even you don't believe in the words you spew. . .

The facts about particulate matter are exactly as science has already proven them._ Those facts are not affected by where any individual does — or does not — reside._ Case law gives individuals who are harmed by an environmental risk a stronger standing to achieve remediation than those who aren’t, so for some goals, moving is not necessarily the best strategy.

BarbaricManchurian

09-08-2009, 12:32 AM

You might want to help contribute to this: http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/holerenderings?pg=15

You know, instead of just obstructing without offering an alternative plan besides "follow the master plan" (which is unprofitable, therefore it has never been followed or approved) or "build nothing"

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 12:45 AM

If they merely imply, they would not have put forth the 30 million already. . .

You don’t understand the political linguistics that state officials are using._ No one has “put forth $30 million” as you wrote.

. . . Why would they put in 30 million dollars on implication? If they were wrong, they would have wasted 30 million dollars of taxpayer money.

State officials implied a $30 million subsidy just to see what the reaction will be._ If reaction is positive, they will waste the money as planned; if negative, then they will say it was only an idea, and then do something else._ Politicians waste taxpayer money all the time._ They don’t mind if they waste it; they just prefer to avoid getting caught wasting it.

. . . But what have you done that was beneficial to the neighborhood? If you were as "influential" as you say, what benefits have you brought?

Firstly, I am not a “neighborhood” person, as you wrote; I am an urban planning activist with a scope that goes much farther than just neighborhoods._ Secondly, in addition to the long-standing issues of which the public was always aware, I discovered new issues that arose after the public meetings had stopped._ Here are just a few.

• The air rights were leased without any fair market value property appraisal, a violation of public policy.

• The developers never got their tunnel designs approved by the sworn, independent quality-control engineers required by law.

• A project which was proposed and approved as subsidy-free later sought 19 public subsidies worth $605 million. Documenting this dishonesty benefitted taxpayers citywide, statewide, and nationwide.

• Fraudulent subsidy applications were submitted.

• Every bank ever asked about funding this project refused; no loans were issued, approved, or even applied for.

• Condominium owners inherit fiscal and legal liability for tunnel design, construction, inspection, preventive maintenance, remedial repair, government-mandated upgrade, and periodic demolition, removal, and replacement.

• The developers do not know the costs of tunnel insurance, upkeep, or replacement.

• The public parks were secretly privatized.

. . . not only had you left the canyon as it is, you ended up stopping foundation work mid way through. Your work as caused the mess at the site and now requires money fro mthe Turnpike, money from taxpayers, to clean up the mess.

All that is untrue._ I did none of the things you wrote above.

Firstly, no foundation work ever started, because the developers never got permission to build either the tunnels or the buildings._ The developer’s lawyers and the Turnpike’s lawyers were always careful to specify that they were only doing “site preparation and pre-construction activity.”

Secondly, California (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) halted funding in September 2007._ Winn Development then foolishly chose to proceed with “site preparation and pre-construction activity” anyway, even though they had no funding, no subsidies, and no bank loans._ What little cash they had quickly evaporated._ In March 2008, Winn sent the workers home, returned all the rented heavy equipment, and abandoned the construction site._ Nothing was ever built._ A few months later, California took project control away from Winn, and gave it to Beal & Related, who — just like California & Winn — never put in enough capital, never got enough subsidies, never got any bank loans, and never built anything.

The fact that nothing got built is entirely the fault of the development teams.

The fact that there are no performance bonds to restore the 7-acre site is the fault of the developers (whose lease required them to buy bonds), and the Turnpike Authority (which forgot to demand bonds before work started).

Re-read the newspaper articles since September 2007 for details.

. . . Your "influence" left the site worse today than it was before and much worse had it been built. . .

That is untrue._ This project would have halted eventually anyway, because (a) every bank asked to fund it always refused; (b) the hoped-for subsidies never materialized; and (c) California’s investor-owners lost faith in the venture and stopped funding it._ Under such circumstances, it’s far better to stop work during the first 6 months than during the next 15 years._ Yes, the construction that started in 2007 did not have to finish until 2022.

. . . Most of the reports involved you saying the same exact thing each time, that you are unhappy with the project.

That is untrue._ No newspaper ever quoted me as being “unhappy with the project” as you wrote, so re-read the articles._ For 14 years, I have been a supporter of air rights development, and a critic of this proposal, which are two very different things._ I remain critical because there was no competitive bidding, no financial disclosure, no Turnpike Master Plan compliance, and the public subsidy applications were fraudulent.

. . . You must be a fool to think developers listens to a single person like you intently . . . they did not do anything about the UFP pollution, even if they already knew about it. . .

The verb “listen” has two meanings:_ “hear aurally” and “cooperatively comply.”_ You mistakenly merged the two meanings, and so now you are confused._ Yes, developers do, indeed, listen to everything spoken about their proposals, because they want to know everything that people are saying._ No, they do not “listen” in the sense of doing everything that is asked of them._ They listen (hear) regarding every remediation issue, and then don’t listen (procrastinate) as long as possible, to maximize profits._ These developers are behaving exactly as I specified: hearing, and then doing nothing.

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 12:48 AM

Does anyone admit to being against building there?

To date, no one is on record as opposing air rights development._ But many people are on record as opposing:_ non-competitive bids, no financial disclosure, Turnpike Master Plan violations, public subsidies to private projects, and environmental damage.

BarbaricManchurian

09-08-2009, 12:50 AM

You ignored the specifications. • None of the services you listed above can host all 16,000 public records — for any Windows/MacIntosh user — to search — browse — read — and download — as needed._ Re-check the software and service specifications.

Yes they can, if you convert them into the correct format first.

You presume incorrectly. • The vast majority of Columbus Center public records were never released in any electronic format, the custodians aren’t obligated to convert them to electronic format, and among the few pages that are in PD Format, most are not text-searchable, a necessity for an on-line library of public records.

Then, there are many options. Firstly, you can type them into Microsoft Word if you want full searching capability, but of course that is time consuming. Secondly, you can scan them into PDF, which has text recognition which allows searching, but sometimes won't work if your scanned images aren't of a sufficiently high quality. Lastly, you can take photos of them and upload them onto Photobucket, which is the fastest method but doesn't allow text searching.

You don’t appreciate indexing. • Each page of each document has to be read — and fully understood — before it can be indexed in a useful manner._ That requires far more skill, experience, and labor than just tagging Flickr photos “my dog” and “our cat.”

Public records usually aren't indexed. So just word-search capability is good enough. This is just an excuse not to do the required work, since only you have all 16,000 pages of public records and have the capability to share them with others, other than us making a huge effort of time and money to find the location of the public records, when many of us do not live in the City of Boston.

ArchBoston.org doesn’t have adequate software, qualified staff, or the end-to-end funding needed to obtain, scan, and index all these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.

Yes, this is a vBulletin forum, so if you want to post something, you link to it. That does not require any of the things you said, as the online hosting services I mentioned earlier provide the software to host your material for an infinite period of time for free, and even if one goes offline, uploading them to multiple hosts is a good way to make sure that these public records are always accessible.

But that’s not as big a loss as it seems.

Most forum members haven’t even read the entire thread yet._ (If they had, they wouldn’t repeat questions that have already been asked and answered.)_ Stellarfun echoed most members’ attitudes best when he wrote on 7 May 2008:_ “I have neither the time, diligence, or frankly the interest, to peruse thousands of pages of contract and lease documents.”

What do you have to lose? Since you have already put in so much effort remembering the number, date, and content of all posts in this thread, uploading a measly 16,000 pages of public records shouldn't be too difficult. If this audience is unappreciative, then why spend the effort that you have already made with your hundreds of detailed posts? If you want to educate others, it's best to show all of the related materials to your target audience.

All the records are readily available to everybody._

If they were so "readily available," then you can provide free transportation to the location of the public records for all of us who are interested in looking through them. Otherwise, they aren't "readily available," in fact, they are probably located in many disparate locations where one can probably only be granted access to with an advance appointment.

Your logic is poor. • ...Anyone who reaches categorical conclusions — without reviewing any of the available evidence — is a fool._ Your threatening not to believe me is even more foolish, because I did not join the forum to persuade anyone of anything; I joined to post whatever facts other members clearly don’t have, and to observe and record the reactions._ Most foolish of all are the cheerleaders who, every time Columbus Center hits a new low, start crying, “Halt the discussion! Stop the posts! Lock the thread!” as though silencing the news could change the reality.

irrelevant ad hominen attacks

The facts about particulate matter are exactly as science has already proven them._ Those facts are not affected by where any individual does — or does not — reside._ Case law gives individuals who are harmed by an environmental risk a stronger standing to achieve remediation than those who aren’t, so for some goals, moving is not necessarily the best strategy.

So that means no one else along the I-90 corridor is interested enough to file a lawsuit about UFPs (plus why haven't you, already)? That's awfully presumptuous, even by you. Fact is, if you cared about the health of yourself and others, you should educate as many residents of your neighborhood about UFPs and try to encourage them to relocate to an area with a lower concentration of UFPs. Either that, or try to start a class-action lawsuit forcing someone to fix the problem so thousands don't have to die just because of the government's negligence (I can sense a huge news story/scandal if it were all true).

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 07:52 AM

Yes they can, if you convert them into the correct format first.

No, none of the products you chose would work in your project._ Format has nothing to do with it._ Re-read the specifications._ Not a single one of the products you chose can host the public records in all 6 of these ways at the same time:

1. for any Windows/MacIntosh user,
2. to search,
3. to browse,
4. to read,
5. to download, and
6. on an as-needed basis.

. . . you can type them into Microsoft Word . . . you can scan them into PDF . . . you can take photos of them. . .

If you believe, as you wrote, that you could re-type, scan, or photograph these 16,000 pages of public records successfully, then you clearly have never done such a project._ But since you insist it would work, then start today, and as soon as you’re done, let everyone know how it went.

. . . Public records usually aren't indexed.

Yes, but for the scope and scale of your project, both pages and documents would need to be indexed and paginated to be useful._ Remember, you haven’t read these documents, and don’t appreciate the content.

. . . So just word-search capability is good enough.

No, it isn’t._ You haven’t done anything on this scale (or you wouldn’t say such things).

. . . This is just an excuse not to do the required work. . .

No, it isn’t an excuse._ I said from the outset that I would never do this project, because I know what’s required to obtain, scan, and index these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free._ It would be wasteful and pointless for me to provide any more information to people who won’t even read the existing thread, who already complain about too much information, and who have no control over the outcome._ You, on the other hand, are the only one who sees value in your project, so it is you who has to do it (because no one else ever will).

. . . only you have all 16,000 pages of public records and have the capability to share them with others. . .

That is untrue._ I am not the only person with these records._ They all came from public sources._ All of them are available to anybody._ And since your project is evidence-dependent, you have to get the evidence from each source yourself, not from a third party.

. . . uploading a measly 16,000 pages of public records shouldn't be too difficult. If this audience is unappreciative, then why spend the effort in the first place? . . .

If no one thinks you can do this, or no one expects valuable results from you, then ArchBoston.org won’t be willing to sponsor the staffing, funding, and facilities for your project._ If ArchBoston.org is willing to sponsor your project, then you should start it today.

. . . If you want to educate others. . .

I post here to provide facts that others do not have, for public discussion._ But my goals don’t include educating members of ArchBoston.org, so for me, pursuing your project has no value.

. . . it's best to show all of the related materials to your target audience.

No, it’s not._ Do the arithmetic._ Forum members won't even read all of their 199 web pages covering the last 3.5 years, but you want to obtain, scan, and index 16,000 more pages covering 14 years. No, showing an audience all possible materials is not necessarily best; with this audience it would be especially counter-productive._ So far, you are the only person interested in pursuing your on-line public records project, so if you can’t get ArchBoston.org to sponsor you, then you’ll have to either get another sponsor, or else take the hint, and give it up.

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 08:39 AM

The Related Companies lose stalled project in foreign bank foreclosure

The Related Companies, the financial powerhouse enlisted by The Beal Companies to save Columbus Center over one year ago, has lost a 3.5-year-old project to a German bank, which is selling it at a foreclosure auction next month.

Related tried to start “Commons at Prospect Hill,” a $500 million, 1.7-million s.f. mixed use project in Waltham at the same time that California tried to start “Columbus Center,” an $850 million, 1.5-million s.f. mixed use project in Boston._ At both sites, nothing was ever built.

In August 2008, Related promised a Columbus Center Financial Viability Review to be published in October 2008._ Related extended its own deadline 3 times, first to November, then to December, then to April, and finally stopped taking inquiries about it altogether.

The loss of the 119-acre property will be costly, and that doesn’t bode well for Related’s stalled efforts to re-launch the 14-year-old Columbus Center proposal.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/09/08/polaroid_project_in_waltham_not_dead_analysts_say/

Ned Flaherty

09-08-2009, 08:56 AM

You might want to help contribute to this: http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/holerenderings?pg=15. You know, instead of just obstructing without offering an alternative plan besides "follow the master plan" (which is unprofitable, therefore it has never been followed or approved) or "build nothing"

I am not a designer, but I hope many others contribute ideas. Both of your mistakes above show that you still haven’t read the Columbus Center thread in its entirety.

1. I did offer an alternative plan, along with thousands of other people. Re-read post #1938 on 21 August.

2. There’s no evidence that the Turnpike Master Plan is un-profitable as you wrote, and 5 experienced development teams have submitted 5 proposals that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan precisely because they find the Plan profitable.

GW2500

09-08-2009, 10:43 AM

Was there ever a thread for this Commons at Prospect Hill in Waltham?

BarbaricManchurian

09-08-2009, 02:58 PM

No, none of the products you chose would work in your project._ Format has nothing to do with it._ Re-read the specifications._ Not a single one of the products you chose can host the public records in all 6 of these ways at the same time:

1. for any Windows/MacIntosh user,
2. to search,
3. to browse,
4. to read,
5. to download, and
6. on an as-needed basis.

None of them can host them in all 6 ways at the same time, but one can download on an as-needed basis using Windows/Macintosh, search them, browse them, and read them with all of the links I gave. You should really appreciate the advice I am giving you rather than be obstinate about it.

If you believe, as you wrote, that you could re-type, scan, or photograph these 16,000 pages of public records successfully, then you clearly have never done such a project._ But since you insist it would work, then start today, and as soon as you’re done, let everyone know how it went.

I don't have the public records, so obviously I can't do that!

Yes, but for the scope and scale of your project, both pages and documents would need to be indexed and paginated to be useful._ Remember, you haven’t read these documents, and don’t appreciate the content.

You don't have to do that at first. If you really feel it is necessary, you can add that in at a later date.

No, it isn’t._ You haven’t done anything on this scale (or you wouldn’t say such things).

Then show us, and we'll then be able to see how it's so big that word-search isn't even useful!

No, it isn’t an excuse._ I said from the outset that I would never do this project, because I know what’s required to obtain, scan, and index these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free._ It would be wasteful and pointless for me to provide any more information to people who won’t even read the existing thread, who already complain about too much information, and who have no control over the outcome._ You, on the other hand, are the only one who sees value in your project, so it is you who has to do it (because no one else ever will).

Then don't post anymore here, if you aren't even going to educate us when that is what you say you are doing. Quoting from the public records is not sufficient when we cannot see the actual public records where they are from, to determine their full context.

That is untrue._ I am not the only person with these records._ They all came from public sources._ All of them are available to anybody._ And since your project is evidence-dependent, you have to get the evidence from each source yourself, not from a third party.

You're the only person with all 16,000 pages. They are only available if you can physically go to the location where they are stored, and I suspect they are stored in many disparate locations and available by appointment only.

If no one thinks you can do this, or no one expects valuable results from you, then ArchBoston.org won’t be willing to sponsor the staffing, funding, and facilities for your project._ If ArchBoston.org is willing to sponsor your project, then you should start it today.

You don't need "staffing, funding, and facilities" to upload the public records. As I have repeatedly stated, the services I have linked to are free, host your files for an unlimited amount of time, and allow an unlimited number of people to download them.

I post here to provide facts that others do not have, for public discussion._ But my goals don’t include educating members of ArchBoston.org, so for me, pursuing your project has no value.

Really? Then what were you doing with your initial question & answer style format in your posts, a format usually used to educate others? If you can't even post the source of your "facts," then they have "no value."

No, it’s not._ Do the arithmetic._ Forum members won't even read all of their 199 web pages covering the last 3.5 years, but you want to obtain, scan, and index 16,000 more pages covering 14 years. No, showing an audience all possible materials is not necessarily best; with this audience it would be especially counter-productive._ So far, you are the only person interested in pursuing your on-line public records project, so if you can’t get ArchBoston.org to sponsor you, then you’ll have to either get another sponsor, or else take the hint, and give it up.

As I have already said, it does not require a sponsor, it just takes a little bit of time, something that you seem to have a lot of with you first reading 16,000 pages of public records and then posting detailed grammatically correct posts concerning Columbus Center including lengthy diatribes against certain forum members. If you can spend all the time necessary to do that (and I'm sure it took a long time), I'm sure you can spend the small extra time and effort required to share these public records with everyone else.

Also, please don't avoid this question:

So that means no one else along the I-90 corridor is interested enough to file a lawsuit about UFPs (plus why haven't you, already)? That's awfully presumptuous, even by you. Fact is, if you cared about the health of yourself and others, you should educate as many residents of your neighborhood about UFPs and try to encourage them to relocate to an area with a lower concentration of UFPs. Either that, or try to start a class-action lawsuit forcing someone to fix the problem so thousands don't have to die just because of the government's negligence (I can sense a huge news story/scandal if it were all true).

atlrvr

09-08-2009, 09:41 PM

Ned Flaherty

09-10-2009, 11:09 AM

. . . I don't have the public records . . . Quoting from the public records is not sufficient . . . You don't need "staffing, funding, and facilities" to upload the public records . . . it just takes a little bit of time . . . (and I'm sure it took a long time) . . .

• No, you don’t have the public records.

• The pure, evidence-based project you’re thinking of requires getting the source documents from government records custodians and original authors, not from third parties.

• You’re still unsure (above) as to whether getting and reading these records take a “little” or a “long” time._ Just do the first 1,000 pages, and you will see.

• If you’re sure you can do all this without staffing, funding, and facilities, then prove it, and just do it._ (Hint: your refusal to measure resources for your own proposed project mirrors your refusal to measure total development cost at the proposed Columbus Center, so your project is likely to end the same way.)

This Forum is for discussions about the built environment; it’s not a lawsuit evidence library._ Since ArchBoston.org won’t give you the resources to do what you call a “measly” project, then you have to find another sponsor, or give it up altogether, because you are the only one who sees value in your idea.

Regarding particulate matter issues, people and organizations are far more active than you realize._ Intermediate progress is not reported here; news is periodically posted here, but only after it is reported elsewhere, so you will have to wait.