Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Train tracks

JimboJones said:
Yes, I was surprised to see that the train tracks remain exposed between Berkeley and Arlington.

Perhaps for ventilation reasons? I often hear complaints about diesel smoke in Back Bay station.
 
Rendering of a pathway park for Columbus Center. From:
http://www.pressleyinc.com/portfolio/columbusctr_green.html

columbusctr_seminal.jpg
 
From Today's Globe:

Neighborly view of Columbus Center
July 14, 2007

IN HIS July 10 column ("Snow job creation," City & Region), Adrian Walker writes that Columbus Center "has never lacked opponents," and he implies that there is widespread and unified opposition to the South End project. This is not the case. The Bay Village Neighborhood Association, among many other groups, continues to strongly support this project.

Further, in criticizing those who support limited public funding for elements of this project, such as Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Roxbury, he seeks to portray them as captives of the developers, an entirely unfounded charge.

For those who live near the Massachusetts Turnpike, providing funds to allow this project to move forward means repairing the blight caused by the state's construction of the turnpike decades ago. The project would rejoin three residential neighborhoods (Bay Village, the South End, and Back Bay) that were artificially separated by the turnpike. Public benefits aren't measured by job creation alone, and the small amount of money granted Columbus Center is a small price for the state to pay for ameliorating the injury it has previously inflicted.

MARK SLATER
President, Bay Village Neighborhood Association
Boston
 
^^
It's just that the opposition gets more say than those that support it. I think those in opposition should just go move out of the city and go live in Springfield or Worcester. Boston is a major city, a really small city and they have to realize that there is no more room to grow but up.
 
The Bay Village Neighborhood Association, among many other groups, continues to strongly support this project.

I've always liked the Bay Village...
 
They have a lot to gain from this project, quality-of-life wise. In fact so does the South End which is why I don't understand the opposition.
 
The Boston Globe weighs in today about the Columbus Center subsidies with their "Short Fuse" editorial.

Development: Enough with the subsidies

The proposed 35-story Columbus Center in the South End was supposed to set the future tone for air rights development above the Massachusetts Turnpike regarding height, mass, open space, and transportation links. Instead, the project is setting the tone for government giveaways. The Patrick administration has awarded $10 million to the Winn-Cassin development team to jump-start the project and may provide a $10 million loan to boot. Now the developer-friendly Menino administration wants to kick in tax-free Empowerment Zone bonds normally used to stimulate businesses in low-income neighborhoods. These subsidies are too deep. The developers already secured a favorable long-term leasing deal from the Pike for the air rights -- just $12.2 million. The Patrick administration says Columbus Center will generate hundreds of jobs. But so will the 75 other construction projects already underway in Boston. If this is the future of building on air rights in Boston, then developers should stay on the ground.

It's over a highway, no wonder it costs so much and they need a little money to start the project. This also has better public benefits then most other construction projects so a little subsidizing for the improvement of the community is something that I support.
 
But how many times should the developers be allowed to beg for more subsidy? When do you say, "you've got enough, build it now or let someone else do it instead"?
 
i think this whole thing is a clusterfuck. 'if the city didnt drag its feet on the approval then construction costs woulda been lower and this thing would have already been built'..... 'the city asked for too much from the developer in improvements to the area'.... 'the state should never give money to a private corp. to cut their initial investment and improve their marginal cost benefit'

Can't the city and state get around giving them money in some way and still get this project done? Cant the state or corp issue bonds to help? cant they allow more height to improve revenue? This thing got very screwed up somewhere along the line and I have to think it has alot to do with nimby's. how do nimby's from 3 or 4 blocks away have any power? people just bitch just to bitch. IGNORE THEM.

Anybody think nimby's would have started a lawsuit over this? do they have the monetary resources to fight a real battle in court? is this just a PR issue so that the city and state just bows to nimby's? what exactly takes place in the approval process? i dont know personally, can somebody with some actual knowledge shed some light on this for me?
 
When do you say, "you've got enough, build it now or let someone else do it instead"?

Who else is there? Every other developer (except the very well connected Jon Rosenthal) is probably scared to even propose anything at this point.

If the developer is expected to give benefits back (parks, ground water systems, etc.), why shouldn't the powers that be help them out too? Especially when the delays were due to pacifying the masses of the South End.
 
I agree with Bobby here, this is a clsuterfuck and it has gone on a bit too long.
 
Is it just me or do people really not understand the difference between grants and loans. All I'm seeing is the word 'Subsidize' used by everyone who has a negative opinion about the project and upon seeing this word it becomes a knee jerk reaction to think the developer is getting a break.

For all that I've read the only grant is the $10M from the state. Every other bit of public funding received by the developer is essentially a loan that will get paid back. (And most of the time it's paid back with interest)

So really the way to look at this is our government is 'investing' in our city.



Now just to point out how ridiculous the media and NIMBY's are with a few numbers .......

1) The Deck is now estimated at $140M dollars (up $100M from original estimate) All the public funding put together doesn't even cover the cost of the deck.
2) If the project construction cost (hard costs) are $500M then the City of Boston can expect permit fees in excess of $5M.
(Maybe the state should just write their check out to the city :) )
3) There are going to be 450 new condos when all built out. At a conservative estimate of $10,000/year in real estate taxes per unit, that is $4.5M annually. (in just two years the same amount of the grant will have been paid to the city in just property takes)

There are countless other benefits to this project; and quite frankly it is embarrassing to the City of Boston that we have so called community activists that are so short sited.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
They have a lot to gain from this project, quality-of-life wise. In fact so does the South End which is why I don't understand the opposition.

Don't you understand that blindly opposing every and any development project is part of being a resident of the South End?

I agree with Bobby here, this is a clsuterfuck and it has gone on a bit too long.

This thing should have been built by now. There's no excuse for it to have gone on this far and still not have some sort of resolution. This isn't just one party's fault either, everyone involved has added to the clusterfuck.

I don't really see how anyone including the residents of the South End, can be opposed to this project. The editorial by the Bay Village guy was 100% on, it's going to reconnect three neighborhoods that should have never been disconnected in the first place. Only in Boston could the city fuck up, then have a chance to un-do the fuck up and have it hit every wall possible on the way to doing so. Unbelievable.
 
Opposition

You guys keep saying everyone against this are members of the neighborhood. But, many who are against it (who care) are from outside the neighborhood, who are complaining about the money being given (or loaned) to the developer.

Make a distinction when you talk about this ... who are you mad at?

Also, estimating that the city will make $10,000 per unit, per year, in real estate taxes is a bit too high, although it doesn't negate your point.

The average new condo will probably be in the $500,000 - $800,000 price range. The property tax, at the current rate of $11.12 per $1,000 of assessed value, means the average tax bill might be $5,500 - $8,800, but then you need to take out the residential exemption of around $1,500 per year.

So, the city will bank $5,000 - $7,500 per year, per condo. Still, a great improvement from the current day .. when we get nothing!
 
Also, there's a difference between being against the project and being agaisnt the subsidy. I strongly favor the project but question whether it should receive (this much) subsidy. Economic development funds spent here are funds not spent somewhere else that might be more deserving.
 
Ron Newman said:
Also, there's a difference between being against the project and being agaisnt the subsidy. I strongly favor the project but question whether it should receive (this much) subsidy. Economic development funds spent here are funds not spent somewhere else that might be more deserving.

The money involved ($10 million) seems like a lot, but for what it accomplishes I don't think it's that much at all. You're putting a development in an area of the T-Pike that is horrible. You're re-connecting neighborhoods. The city is also going to make this money back ten-fold over the years. I don't see what the problem is. I can gaurentee that the people against this project are using the subsidy as an excuse why this shouldn't be built. If the subsidy was taken out of the picture they'd find another reason to bitch and complain about.
 
Re: Opposition

JimboJones said:
You guys keep saying everyone against this are members of the neighborhood. But, many who are against it (who care) are from outside the neighborhood, who are complaining about the money being given (or loaned) to the developer.

Make a distinction when you talk about this ... who are you mad at?

Adrian Walker - Who wrote that complete trash of a column on 7/10
Martha Walz - Back Bay Representative who for some unknown reason opposes this project.
David Mundel - South End Resident
Ned Flahrety - South End Resident
Shirley Kressel - Activist

All of the above have been quoted as being against the project within the past week. From what I can tell it looks like it is the neighborhood activists, self appointed Boston activists, and sensationalist media who are against this project.

Also surprised I couldn't find a quote from Chuck Turner in the past couple of pages.

Also, estimating that the city will make $10,000 per unit, per year, in real estate taxes is a bit too high, although it doesn't negate your point.

The average new condo will probably be in the $500,000 - $800,000 price range. The property tax, at the current rate of $11.12 per $1,000 of assessed value, means the average tax bill might be $5,500 - $8,800, but then you need to take out the residential exemption of around $1,500 per year.

So, the city will bank $5,000 - $7,500 per year, per condo. Still, a great improvement from the current day .. when we get nothing!

I estimated that the average sale was going to be a million dollars. It could be high, but I don't see anything in that development going for less the $600K and the upper floors will have multi million dollar units. I also didn't figure in the hotel taxes, restaurant taxes, and other sales taxes.

I just wanted to give an idea of what the total revenue could be for the city after the construction is complete.
 
DiMasi rips $10m grant for project
Speaker, Patrick at odds over Columbus Center

By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 19, 2007

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called on Governor Deval Patrick yesterday to rescind the administration's award of $10 million to the controversial Columbus Center project in Boston, calling the grant corporate welfare in a letter that reflects renewed tension between the two Democratic leaders.

In the letter, DiMasi and two other legislators who represent the neighborhoods around the massive proposed development called the administration's decision to give tax dollars to the increasingly expensive project a perfect example of why the Legislature has set aside funds for specific projects, rather than giving the governor discretion on spending.

"The $10 million comes from a fund the Legislature established last year to provide grants to stimulate the creation of badly needed manufacturing jobs," wrote DiMasi and Representatives Byron Rushing and Marty Walz. "We intended for the money to underwrite targeted investments by companies and governmental agencies to help the state's economy expand. We did not set the money aside to help a private developer build million- dollar condos."

The lawmakers contend that the developers of the project, which will connect the Back Bay and South End over the Massachusetts Turnpike, had repeatedly promised that they would not seek public funds to build the condo, hotel, and retail center, an assertion that the developers deny. The Legislature has rejected previous efforts to earmark money for the center, but set up a general economic stimulus pool that the administration recently tapped to award the Columbus Center grant and several others.

For more of the back and forth:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/19/dimasi_rips_10m_grant_for_project?mode=PF
 
Bankers & Tradesmen said:
Winn Still Waiting For Columbus? Day
July 16, 2007
By Thomas Grillo,
Reporter

Developer of Controversial Project in South End Hopes $32.5 Million Bond Will Get Ball Rolling

More money. The developer of a controversial project to be built above the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston?s South End neighborhood is hoping a $32.5 million bond will get the long-delayed project under way.

The latest request in public support for Columbus Center comes as the project budget has reached $790 million, more than double the original cost when the mega-development was approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in 2003.

But as the Boston Industrial Development Financing Authority (BIDFA) is set to approve the tax-free financing request, critics of the project are outraged by what they call Boston-based WinnDevelopment?s latest money grab.

?This is another form of public assistance and a complete waste of taxpayer money,? said state Rep. Martha M. Walz, whose Back Bay district abuts the project site. ?Roger Cassin said in public forums that he would not seek any public subsidy in exchange for the project?s height and density. But once the gavel was pounded for approval, he went on a wild spree for free money at taxpayer expense.?

Alan Eisner, a spokesman for Cassin, Winn?s managing partner, said public financing was never ruled out. ?I wasn?t there, but Mr. Cassin insists that he never said he would not seek public support and Roger is an honorable man.?

James G. Alexander, who served on the Citizens Advisory Committee, a panel appointed to advise Mayor Thomas M. Menino on the project, said Cassin never made an ?ironclad? promise not to seek taxpayer money.

?[Walz] is known to be thorough and precise and I do recall Roger said there did not seem to be a need to seek public financing,? Alexander said. ?But that was more than five years ago. Reasonable people could agree that when the project?s construction costs escalated, it seemed to be a good use of public money to turn the pollution-choked turnpike into a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.?

Still, there appears to be disagreement about how much public support Winn is seeking. Eisner said the total is $58.6 million: $20.6 million from MassHousing for the affordable units in the project, $15 million in federal New Market Tax Credits, a $10 million Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs Program grant from Gov. Deval Patrick?s administration, $7 million in Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a $4 million benefit from the BIDFA bond and a $2 million Community Development Action Grant Program grant.

Ned Flaherty, a project critic, said the public subsidies are closer to $500 million. In a report prepared for legislators and reporters, the Back Bay resident lists a $198 million discount for the air-rights parcel from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, $132 million in TIF financing and $58 million in federal tax waivers among the biggest items.

But a close examination of the data finds that Flaherty included loans as well as grants. A $4.3 million allocation request by Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, defeated by the Legislature last year, also was included in the tally.

?Among the 14 different items we list, some are outright gifts while others are loans,? he said. ?My purpose is to show the amounts are big and to this point there has never been a government accounting of the cost of each of these favors.?

The BIDFA bond is available to Winn because earlier this year the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development expanded Boston?s Empowerment Zone to include parcels above the turnpike. The city?s EZ is comprised of depressed areas of the city that need revitalization. Businesses that locate within the zone and create jobs can take advantage of tax credits and bonds. The money generated from Winn?s bond will be used to support construction of a 35-story luxury hotel and a 915-car parking garage that will offer more than 220 jobs.

?An Important Step?

Columbus Center is a 1.5 million-square-foot neighborhood to be built on four parcels including 7 acres above the turnpike bounded by Clarendon Street, Cahners Way and Columbus Avenue between the Back Bay and the South End.

While many Columbus Center foes attend hearings to oppose public funding for the project, reporters outnumbered residents at the sparsely attended BIDFA hearing last week. Francesco C. Tocci, deputy director for financial services in the Boston Redevelopment Authority?s Planning and Economic Development Office who chaired the brief session, said in more than a decade no one has ever attended a hearing at the agency.

?In 11 years, no one has ever showed up,? he said. ?Actually, one person did show once but it turned out he had come to the wrong meeting.?

BIDFA funds are below-market interest-rate bonds that are to be paid back in 20 to 30 years. The tax-exempt EZ bonds are issued to acquire land and build new facilities that promise job creation. The agency has dispensed more than $100 million in bonds including $50 million for the Fenway Community Health Center on Boylston Street and $43 million to support construction of the 175-room Hampton Inn & Suites in Roxbury. The borrower, not the city of Boston or the commonwealth of Massachusetts, is pledged to repay the bonds.

Thomas Miller, the BRA?s economic development director who has shepherded Columbus Center for years, said the BIDFA bond could be the final piece of the financial picture for the project.

?This is getting toward the end of the financing road,? he said. ?My position has been clear: I?m trying to get this project moving forward and this is an important step. Hopefully, we can get a shovel on the ground before summer?s end.?

Still, the project has had a number of stops and starts, in part, because construction costs have doubled and financing has been a challenge. The cost of the deck to be built over the turnpike has gone from $65 million to $145 million, according to Eisner.

While Winn hopes to commence construction commence shortly, Eisner could not rule out another application for public money.

?We have been putting our financing together with the city, state and private investors that will allow us to go into the ground this summer,? he said. ?We still don?t have all the money in place. But we are hopeful to begin because any more delays will increase the cost and we?ll end up with another gap.?
 
stellarfun said:
DiMasi rips $10m grant for project
Speaker, Patrick at odds over Columbus Center

By Andrea Estes, Globe Staff | July 19, 2007

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called on Governor Deval Patrick yesterday to rescind the administration's award of $10 million to the controversial Columbus Center project in Boston, calling the grant corporate welfare in a letter that reflects renewed tension between the two Democratic leaders.

In the letter, DiMasi and two other legislators who represent the neighborhoods around the massive proposed development called the administration's decision to give tax dollars to the increasingly expensive project a perfect example of why the Legislature has set aside funds for specific projects, rather than giving the governor discretion on spending.

"The $10 million comes from a fund the Legislature established last year to provide grants to stimulate the creation of badly needed manufacturing jobs," wrote DiMasi and Representatives Byron Rushing and Marty Walz. "We intended for the money to underwrite targeted investments by companies and governmental agencies to help the state's economy expand. We did not set the money aside to help a private developer build million- dollar condos."

The lawmakers contend that the developers of the project, which will connect the Back Bay and South End over the Massachusetts Turnpike, had repeatedly promised that they would not seek public funds to build the condo, hotel, and retail center, an assertion that the developers deny. The Legislature has rejected previous efforts to earmark money for the center, but set up a general economic stimulus pool that the administration recently tapped to award the Columbus Center grant and several others.

For more of the back and forth:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/19/dimasi_rips_10m_grant_for_project?mode=PF

I'm getting so tired of this guy... i want a new house speaker!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top