stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,676
- Reaction score
- 1,480
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
czsz, IIRC, the encumbrances on the garage property are two: one is that the garage serves as some sort of utility hub for Harbor Towers, and the residents of Harbor Towers have a legal easement onto that part of the garage property through some date, which may be the 2069 date referred to by the BRA. Harbor Towers was completed in 1971, so 2069 sounds like a 99 year easement/lease.
The other encumbrance is the parking spaces for Harbor Towers residents, which go to the value of the condo; i.e., when you buy a condo, you are buying a parking space. I can't recall the exact number of spaces in the Harbor Garage that are set aside for Harbor Towers residents, but something like 500-600 spaces comes to mind. IIRC, the property 'right' to these spaces expires some time in the 2030s, --maybe this was a 65 year easement?
I think it was the 'problem' of what to do with these spaces that led Don to recently propose a floating garage in the harbor during the construction period.
So, my perception is that the residents of Harbor Towers pretty much have Mr. Chiofaro by the gonads, and he can't do anything without their acquiescence. As there is currently no love lost between the two sides, Don's only recourse, as he lacks eminent domain powers, is to try and buy the Harbor Tower residents out of their easement and property rights. How much do you think they would hold him up for: $200,000, $300,000 per condo unit?
Don, of course, having done due diligence as a smart businessman, knew beforehand how much the Harbor Garage was so encumbered before he bought it.
I will add that Don proceeding with schemes before doing the necessary spadework with those who have a vested interest in the property he owns or proposes to develop was replicated by the most recent iteration.
He unveiled a re-design featuring a town square with a glass pavilion on the north side of his property, yet three quarters of the property in his rendering is not his, and supposedly he had not discussed or briefed his scheme with the nearby property owners beforehand.
czsz, IIRC, the encumbrances on the garage property are two: one is that the garage serves as some sort of utility hub for Harbor Towers, and the residents of Harbor Towers have a legal easement onto that part of the garage property through some date, which may be the 2069 date referred to by the BRA. Harbor Towers was completed in 1971, so 2069 sounds like a 99 year easement/lease.
The other encumbrance is the parking spaces for Harbor Towers residents, which go to the value of the condo; i.e., when you buy a condo, you are buying a parking space. I can't recall the exact number of spaces in the Harbor Garage that are set aside for Harbor Towers residents, but something like 500-600 spaces comes to mind. IIRC, the property 'right' to these spaces expires some time in the 2030s, --maybe this was a 65 year easement?
I think it was the 'problem' of what to do with these spaces that led Don to recently propose a floating garage in the harbor during the construction period.
So, my perception is that the residents of Harbor Towers pretty much have Mr. Chiofaro by the gonads, and he can't do anything without their acquiescence. As there is currently no love lost between the two sides, Don's only recourse, as he lacks eminent domain powers, is to try and buy the Harbor Tower residents out of their easement and property rights. How much do you think they would hold him up for: $200,000, $300,000 per condo unit?
Don, of course, having done due diligence as a smart businessman, knew beforehand how much the Harbor Garage was so encumbered before he bought it.
I will add that Don proceeding with schemes before doing the necessary spadework with those who have a vested interest in the property he owns or proposes to develop was replicated by the most recent iteration.
He unveiled a re-design featuring a town square with a glass pavilion on the north side of his property, yet three quarters of the property in his rendering is not his, and supposedly he had not discussed or briefed his scheme with the nearby property owners beforehand.
Last edited: