Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

Be willing to bet a pitcher of Narragansett that there is a survey report on a Rectory book shelf that the steeple is in danger of falling over (again). This sounds like the cost of a stone steeple tear down and rebuild.
 
shadow for 2 hours for 4 weeks in the dead of winter will contribute to moss growth and mildew. have they produced the study from NASA for this? ...about when it's holy God cold outside; the same days when 1/2 the city's squirrels die. indeed, Boston is home to some of the most epic bs peddlers in modern urban lore.
 
Be willing to bet a pitcher of Narragansett that there is a survey report on a Rectory book shelf that the steeple is in danger of falling over (again). This sounds like the cost of a stone steeple tear down and rebuild.
Click to expand...

This. The request is ridiculous.
 
Except that according to the Globe article:

Of the $19 million Old South Church is seeking, $4 million would go toward repairs to the church itself. The rest, $15 million, would seed a citywide fund for affordable home-ownership programs.
Click to expand...
 
Well, we know who is buying at the next Ab meetup! ;)
 
Should have made that a pitcher of Falstaff.
 
Exactly! What kind of church makes it their mission to do good things for poor people?! Where in the Bible does say anything about that?!
 
navigator4 said:
This is nothing but good old fashion extortion. Who put this church in charge of affordable housing policy in the City?
Click to expand...

I also think the church is out of line, but when the city has repeatedly dropped the ball for decades we shouldn't be overly surprised when someone attempts to pick it up - if for nothing else than to send a message.
 
statler said:
Exactly! What kind of church makes it their mission to do good things for poor people?! Where in the Bible does say anything about that?!
Click to expand...

The poor's reward awaits them in Heaven.
Oh, right, sorry. I bought a 1417 calendar by mistake :0
 
statler said:
Exactly! What kind of church makes it their mission to do good things for poor people?! Where in the Bible does say anything about that?!
Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten about the separation of church and state. The people's representatives set policy. The church is free to do good deeds with its own money - not to confiscate other's money for their good deeds. That ended around 1776.
 
navigator4 said:
You seem to have forgotten about the separation of church and state. The people's representatives set policy. The church is free to do good deeds with its own money - not to confiscate other's money for their good deeds. That ended around 1776.
Click to expand...

Except the State in this case isn't the private developer creating this tower...
 
close the church for 3 years so we can fix a soon-to-be broke city.

and get some density over the pike and transit hub.
 
navigator4 said:
You seem to have forgotten about the separation of church and state. The people's representatives set policy. The church is free to do good deeds with its own money - not to confiscate other's money for their good deeds. That ended around 1776.
Click to expand...

A common misunderstanding of American history. (And pre-Civil War when "states rights" was given credence by the federal judiciary, perhaps a misunderstanding of the then current legal thinking.)

The Congregational Church was not disestablished in Massachusetts until 1833. http://www.uscivilliberties.org/his...nth-century-and-early-nineteenth-century.html
 
bakgwailo said:
Except the State in this case isn't the private developer creating this tower...
Click to expand...

The only reason the developer would give the church any money is because the "state" would require it in order to approve the buildings.
 
navigator4 said:
The only reason the developer would give the church any money is because the "state" would require it in order to approve the buildings.
Click to expand...

Except in this case, no - they (the Church, a non-profit) filed a legal lawsuit (against a private developer) for what it views as damage it will incur to its property if the (private) developer builds on their (private developer's) property. Everyone has right to do this, and it is up to the judiciary to hear the case and try it - it has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State. Now, I suppose the courts are part of the government, but, I don't see that as playing into any part of the approval process by the city/state or the 'state' requiring money to be given to the Church - again, unless its ruled on in a court of law by the laws of our country that the Church deserves damages.
 
bakgwailo said:
Except in this case, no - they (the Church, a non-profit) filed a legal lawsuit (against a private developer) for what it views as damage it will incur to its property if the (private) developer builds on their (private developer's) property. Everyone has right to do this, and it is up to the judiciary to hear the case and try it - it has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State. Now, I suppose the courts are part of the government, but, I don't see that as playing into any part of the approval process by the city/state or the 'state' requiring money to be given to the Church - again, unless its ruled on in a court of law by the laws of our country that the Church deserves damages.
Click to expand...

There's no lawsuit here. The $19 million isn't for alleged damages, it's a "request for mitigation". There's nothing binding or legal about it. The only way it becomes in any way binding is if the City requires Boston Properties to pay it in order to get their building approved, and that is super shaky legal territory.

The Church freely admits that they won't incur $19 million of damages. $15 million of that they want for "a citywide fund for affordable home-ownership programs" that has nothing to do with shadows. And the remaining $4 is for general church upkeep; it's not directly tied to any alleged damage from shadows.

If this were an actual suit, and not a "request", it'd be thrown out in a heartbeat.
 
Globe: Back Bay developer to pay $3m for casting shadows over churches

Boston Globe said:
There’s a price to pay for casting shadows on historic churches in Boston — $3 million.

That’s how much developer Boston Properties has agreed to pay into a preservation fund to make up for any damage that shadows cast by towers it wants to build atop Back Bay Station might cause the Old South and Trinity churches and other nearby historic buildings. The company also agreed to increase its contribution to the city’s affordable housing funds by $3 million, with the money earmarked to help lower- and middle-income homebuyers.

[...]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top