Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Instead of putting him in jail, the court should require him to finish the project as originally proposed, at his own expense if necessary.
 
Columbus Center developer faces $1.6m fine today
Later, prison is likely for its ex-chairman
By Casey Ross | Globe Staff November 30, 2011

The company behind the failed Columbus Center development in Boston is to be sentenced in federal court today for illegally funneling $158,000 in campaign contributions to politicians in order to win government support for the massive project.

Winn Columbus Center Limited Partnership faces a fine of nearly $1.6 million and 12 months of probation under a plea agreement. The company’s former chairman, Arthur Winn, 72, has pleaded guilty to orchestrating the scheme and is scheduled to be sentenced in January. Under a plea agreement, he may get six months in prison.

Prosecutors said the conduct by Winn and his company further eroded trust in Massachusetts government after a string of other corruption cases.

“The [crime] occurred at a time in which public confidence in the political system in Massachusetts has reached an all-time low,’’ US Assistant Attorney James Dowden wrote in the sentencing memorandum.

“The facts of this crime,’’ he added, “demonstrate that far too many individuals and businesses see campaign finance laws as mere regulatory nuisances along their way to securing campaign contributions needed to advance business goals.’’

The case arose out of the federal investigation into former state senator Dianne Wilkerson, a beneficiary of Winn’s giving who was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison last year for taking bribes related to other development projects.

In an unrelated case, former Massachusetts House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi was sentenced to eight years in prison for taking kickbacks related to a state software contract.

Between 2001 and 2009, Winn and another executive at his company illegally donated $157,900 to local, state and federal politicians to get public subsidies for Columbus Center, an $800 million condominium, hotel, and retail project.

Winn and the other executive, Martin Raffol, got friends, relatives, and vendors to donate to candidates and then reimbursed them to hide the source of the money. The contributions went to candidates including Governor Deval Patrick, former governor Mitt Romney, US Senator John Kerry, and state and Boston politicians. None was charged with wrongdoing.

Columbus Center at one point had succeeded in getting more than $60 million in government aid, but the project collapsed in 2007 after it failed to get private funding.

A lawyer for Winn Columbus Center, Mark Pearlstein, wrote in a sentencing memorandum that the company is a well-known provider of affordable housing whose projects have improved communities across the country.

“This episode, and the resulting prosecutions of its affiliate and its former executives has shaken the company,’’ he wrote. “The company has learned its lesson and has moved aggressively both to remedy all harm caused by the former executives’ wrongdoing and to reduce the risk of future occurrences.’’

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Click to expand...


It's amazing that every project being built needs taxpayers money. Not one developer can build something with just private money these days.

http://bostonglobe.com/business/201...-fine-today/EvymLKVJcnJqeV6aGqZq8O/story.html
 
Someone suggested in on here a while back and i think it was a fantastic idea. but boston's stimulus should have been spent decking over the pike from fenway to downtown. You create a ton of infrastructure jobs, but you also are creating valuable real estate. The you let the free market take over (no tax breaks). Sure some developers would get rich off the taxpayer funding the upfront cost, but it is definitely on of the rising tide lifting all ships scenarios in my opinion.
 
Yes, that would have been money well spent. We have to keep in mind that air rights development involves leases, not purchases. If a developer was not going to have to spend money on a deck, MassDOT could conceivably charge more rent in order to recoup the construction costs over the course of a long (eg 99 years) lease. A developer could then build for less up front cost. And we wouldn't be subsidizing construction, since the Commonwealth would still own the deck.

It's hard to see how this didn't happen, but I guess when the stimulus is only for "shovel ready," a lot will get missed.
 
TheRifleman said:
It's amazing that every project being built needs taxpayers money. Not one developer can build something with just private money these days.
Click to expand...


Riff -- once again there was a premateur flash in your pan

Last time I checked none of the following had asked for or received a hand-out, or out-of-the-ordinary construction-related government help such as permission to move a sidewalk, driveway, etc.

1) Novartis at MIT,
2) MFA Foster & Co Arts of the Americas Wing
3) MIT Sloan school
4) various hospital projects
5) Skansa USA in Cambridge
6) Berkeley College
7) Wentwork Institute of tTechnology
8) Gardner addition
9) 610 Main St. Cambridge
10) etc.

The keys:

1) own the property -- no need for arr rights
2) be the end user -- none of these are spec except for skansa
 
whighlander said:
Riff -- once again there was a premateur flash in your pan

Last time I checked none of the following had asked for or received a hand-out, or out-of-the-ordinary construction-related government help such as permission to move a sidewalk, driveway, etc.

1) Novartis at MIT,
2) MFA Foster & Co Arts of the Americas Wing
3) MIT Sloan school
4) various hospital projects
5) Skansa USA in Cambridge
6) Berkeley College
7) Wentwork Institute of tTechnology
8) Gardner addition
9) 610 Main St. Cambridge
10) etc.

The keys:

1) own the property -- no need for arr rights
2) be the end user -- none of these are spec except for skansa
Click to expand...


Besides a couple projects on your list, the rest of the institutions don't pay property taxes.
 
Mmm. In my quest to comment on every thread, let me add my own thoughts.

I don't understand either why some projects need handouts - and "need" is subjective, isn't it?

What's interesting is, as far as I know, none of the residential projects currently being built or about to be built have asked for any $, presumably b/c it's never given, but it's wonderful that they are able to build and make the #'s work w/o government subsidies. And, they pay property taxes, which is a big plus. (Copley Tower is estimated to bring in $7.2 million in property taxes, annually.)

That medical and educational (what's the word I'm looking for - institutional?) building kept many people employed during the past five years is not often mentioned (except by me). Hospitals and colleges are the engines of our economy (along with tourism & to a lesser extent life sciences and finance).

I don't like subsidies, but then I totally support exempting hospitals, colleges, and other non-profits from having to pay property taxes. That's a contradiction, I realize, and I've never been able to weasel my way out of an argument that supporting one means I can't support the other.

I guess I'd say that the "discount" that institutions get for building (due to the property tax) is why they've been able to continue to expand.

EDIT: For example, the Museum of Fine Arts' parcel @ 465 Huntington Ave (land & building, presumably post-Foster) is assessed at $209 million. Back of the envelope calculation estimates its annual property tax bill would be about $6.4 million. Removing that from its annual expenses makes it a lot easier to pay its bills (and salaries, thank god).
 
JohnAKeith said:
Mmm. In my quest to comment on every thread, let me add my own thoughts.

I don't understand either why some projects need handouts - and "need" is subjective, isn't it?
.....
I don't like subsidies, but then I totally support exempting hospitals, colleges, and other non-profits from having to pay property taxes. That's a contradiction, I realize, and I've never been able to weasel my way out of an argument that supporting one means I can't support the other.

I guess I'd say that the "discount" that institutions get for building (due to the property tax) is why they've been able to continue to expand.....

/QUOTE]
and transit
John ... good points the arguement you are searching for to justify the exempt property

Why does the local governmnet tax us based on property -- it provides services to the residents and transient inhabitatants of the town -- i.e. public safety, education and ?

since we are not talking rural NH -- the city and town usually provides:
police, fire, parks, roads, transit, cemetaries, garbage, snow plowing and libraries and schools

Residences need police, fire, parks, roads, transit, cemetaries, garbage, snow plowing and libraries and schools
Businesses need police and fire and roads, garbage, snow plowing and transit
Institutions need police and fire and roads garbage, snow plowing and transit
a) some of the bigger ones have their own police forces and even their own roads e.g. MIT
b) some of the institutions are only occasionally major places of inhabitation e.g. churches (1.x days per week)
empty lots and parking lots are minimal consumers of any services

Logically then residences would pay the most, then businesses and finally the universities and vacant lots

BUT -- only the people who actually live in the town vote and so this never happens

Perhaps the towns and cities should derrive their income based on a combination of a low property tax (police, fire, parks, roads, snow plowing) combined with sales tax collected on anything purchased by anyone in the city / town -- paying for all the rest of the services (transit, cemetaries, garbage, and libraries and schools)
Click to expand...
 
Most businesses need at least a minimally educated population for it's workforce, no?

You may have a point about cemeteries though. The only argument I can think of is that dead bodies lying in streets might be bad for business.
 
JohnAKeith said:
What's interesting is, as far as I know, none of the residential projects currently being built or about to be built have asked for any $, presumably b/c it's never given, but it's wonderful that they are able to build and make the #'s work w/o government subsidies. And, they pay property taxes, which is a big plus. (Copley Tower is estimated to bring in $7.2 million in property taxes, annually.)
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is true about Copley Tower. A good old crazy Shirley Kressel post. Gotta love this women

shirleykressel ? +5 -3
Thanks to the Herald for covering this story carefully; your reporter was really in there seeing it all firsthand. Thank you also for reporting on the residents' protest action. We were just asking for the BRA to go through its entire review process instead of short-circuiting it to prevent full examination of legal issues. The original Copley development is built on public land, and received a HUD UDAG grant of (in today's dollars) $50 million, based on its commitments for the public open space it now wishes to replace with the tower, as well as affordable housing and commercial space and shadow minimization. The BRA/Mayor choose to ignore past court orders, leases, and grant application commitments, for the sake of "construction, no matter what." As Mel King testified, "development" must not be just about buildings, but about people and communities.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to believe any projects that get tax subsidaries or ever gotten them have every right for scrutiny to answer the complaints from the NIMBYS.
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
Not sure if this is true about Copley Tower. A good old crazy Shirley Kressel post. Gotta love this women



I'm starting to believe any projects that get tax subsidaries or ever gotten them have every right for scrutiny to answer the complaints from the NIMBYS.
Click to expand...

Riff -- how about asking this question first -- Why should the taxpayer pay for a HUD HUAC or whatever alphabet soup of arcronyms is relevant grant for this proposed project -- e.g. Copley Place -- its a bit late to be asking the question 30 years after its all been built

as for the NIMBYs -- they are free to buy an adjacent property to have some standing in the zoning appeal process

After all that's the way it works in the Burbs -- somenone wants to put a window box on the front window which would intrude into the required set-back from the street -- everyone who owns a house within about a block is invited to appear at the hearing in Town Hall -- anyone else can come and complain if they want -- but only the folks with the letters have official standing

In the city the impact can be larger -- so for any project not built 'as riht" -- I would require that the city notify all those who own property within about 2 or 3 blocks of the proposed project -- any one else can come to the meeting and comment -- but only the ones on the list have official standing to object

This way -- the fat cats in their rented very expesive but seldom occurpied penthouses, the students in their dorm rooms, the bums on the street -- can comment -- but no one need take them too seriously
 
Whiglander,

My point is can anything get built without sometype of taxpayer assistance? There are developers and companies that do use their own capital to get things done. But it seems the majority can't and they depend on the politicans to bail them out.

I believe the majority should not be developers if they can't figure out how to make a project work financially. I think they should pick a new career.
The taxpayers in the end get will get some cruddy box building that was built by a bunch of hackers and the archectiture will look like garabage.

When taxpayers funds are being used the project probably shouldn't be built.
 
TheRifleman said:
Whiglander,

My point is can anything get built without sometype of taxpayer assistance? There are developers and companies that do use their own capital to get things done. But it seems the majority can't and they depend on the politicans to bail them out.

I believe the majority should not be developers if they can't figure out how to make a project work financially. I think they should pick a new career.
The taxpayers in the end get will get some cruddy box building that was built by a bunch of hackers and the archectiture will look like garabage.

When taxpayers funds are being used the project probably shouldn't be built.
Click to expand...

Riff -- generally agree -- certainly for small scale to medium scale projects built either on open lots or replacing an existing structure or structures with similar foot prints

but as they say the Devil is in the Details --- if the project involves moving / closing a street or moving, burying or ripping up a railroad track -- then I think the city has a legitimate responsibility to insure that after the project is built that the transportation system in the local area is still functioning if not improved -- that often takes taxpayer $

Similarly, the taxpayer migh have to pay when a project includes land & buildings formerly owned by the taxpayers is being sold to the private developer and where unexpected hazardous waste, structural defeciencies ,etc. are involved -- e.g. Charlestown Navy Yard

Additonally, I would consider txpayer funding to a developer who in addition to the project proper could better construct public ammenities bordering on a public park, waterway, etc -- e.g. Marina on Marina Park Drive, or some public landing built along on the Harbor Walk behid Atlanic Wharf

Finally, just as in the fillling of the Back Bay -- the taxpayers paid for the fillng and then recouped the costs as the land was sold for development -- today the Mass DOT could deck the Pike and then sell the "lots" for development to the highest bidders
 
^^^
The problem you have is most of the politicans are fucking corrupt idiots. That is the truth. It's TRUST and they will not do the right thing for the American People.

I do agree with the Non-profits need to start paying their fair share of property taxes. But the city officials also need to cut spending before we start looking for new avenues of tax revenue.

We have too many state and local programs that don't do anything for the taxpayer. I was reading in the Globe last month that the director of Chelsea's housing McLaughlin compensation package was $360,000 from state officials, listing his salary as $160,000 on budget documents.
This is just blantant fraud. I think it's time to start cleaning HOUSE.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...th-bag-cash/TbeS7BKK9gqxZrvtUTuJPM/story.html
 
Using the taxpayers money.......

#1 Decking the pike......
#2 Massive overhaul in the MBTA---Seaport District

I can agree with the state & city officials using taxpayers money to build a strong foundation for the city. Then let the developers build according to FAA regulations & private capital.

This is the city of Boston, not Springfield.

It does seem that the Democrats are starting to loose grip of Mass. It might take another a couple terms but I believe people are waking up to reality.
 
TheRifleman said:
Using the taxpayers money.......

#1 Decking the pike......
#2 Massive overhaul in the MBTA---Seaport District

I can agree with the state & city officials using taxpayers money to build a strong foundation for the city. Then let the developers build according to FAA regulations & private capital.

This is the city of Boston, not Springfield.

It does seem that the Democrats are starting to loose grip of Mass. It might take another a couple terms but I believe people are waking up to reality.
Click to expand...

I'd love to start by:

1) doing away with pensions for any elected official -- they can buy into a 401-k -like private pension however
2) cutting government salaries 10% across the board
3) doing away with all public sector unions
4) putting up dormitory-like housing near the State House, US. Capitol for the senators and representatives
5) cutting their work week to Tus-Thurs with manadatory return to their home distrinct for the Fri-Mon weekend and maximum of 8 weeks of service per quarter
6) 2 yar budgets foroperating expenditures
7) 5 year budget for capital expendures
8) mimimize personal staff -- replace most staff with a common pool of services
9) get rid of all the perks which make them think that they are Roman Senator clones
10) all budgets to be open (with exception of security matters) to a public forum

Then we'd start to take back our country and return to our traditional leadership of the planet
 
TheRifleman said:
Whiglander,

My point is can anything get built without sometype of taxpayer assistance? There are developers and companies that do use their own capital to get things done. But it seems the majority can't and they depend on the politicans to bail them out.

I believe the majority should not be developers if they can't figure out how to make a project work financially. I think they should pick a new career.
The taxpayers in the end get will get some cruddy box building that was built by a bunch of hackers and the archectiture will look like garabage.

When taxpayers funds are being used the project probably shouldn't be built.
Click to expand...
In reality, there is not one (as in zero) construction project anywhere in this country that does not receive public subsidy. If it is accessed in some way by a public street, that's a subsidy. The range of other possible subsidies is significant, and will vary from place to place, project to project. We do not live in a society organized entirely on the basis of private property. We often pretend this is so, but it is demonstrably not. The question we need to ask, and I think this goes to John's point about non-profit tax exemption, is what utility does the project provide to society?

A warehouse or light industrial plant in a largely rural area provides minimal benefit and receives minimal subsidy. Construction in an urban environment is more expensive, but likely also providing greater social benefit. The tricky thing is finding agreement. The various NIMBYs on any project will certainly argue that the social benefit doesn't exist. If they are right, then we should cut the subsidy, but not necessarily ban the construction. If they are wrong, then some subsidy might be appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top