In reply to Justin, Chumbolly, Singbat, Stellarfun, Altrvr...
Q-43. Is density always bad and open space always good?
A-43. No; density can be beneficial, and open space can be ineffective. Government Center Plaza is a textbook example of poorly designed and implemented open space, but that?s no reason to abandon open space altogether. In any event, the Master Plan authors concluded that the skyscrapers? excess density ? not the lowest 150', but the topmost 270' ? would cause enough harm to warrant a compensating reimbursement to the public realm, and they specified the 2-acre contiguous public park to accomplish it.
Q-44. What?s the actual relationship between MTA?s transfer tax, air rights lease, ground lease, condominium documents, and tunnel collapse insurance?
A-44. No one knows yet. The 1,100-page lease (signed 2 May 2006 and in re-negotiation ever since) defines the $10,000-30,000 re-sale tax that MTA clearly wants to collect from every condominium unit. Condominium documents are controlled by MTA, not the developer, so MTA has the upper hand from the outset. Just how MTA will write those documents a few years from now isn?t known yet, but MTA has already confirmed one unique angle: the next 99 years of inspecting, maintaining, and insuring the transportation corridor is each condominium unit owner?s legal liability and financial responsibility, not MTA?s. Settlement of the 2006 tunnel collapse fatality is now approaching $1 billion, so the re-negotiated lease and the brand new condominium documents will deserve much public scrutiny once they?re available.
Q-45. Who?s responsible for deleting the 2-acre public park?
A-45. MTA, BRA, Mayor Menino, and CalPERS all share this responsibility. The MTA, BRA, and Mayor Menino authored, approved, and published the Master Plan, and it is they who decided to require the 2-acre public park. The former project owners (Winn Development) initially promised to comply with the entire Master Plan, but later replaced the 150' tower with their 420' version, and replaced the 2-acre park with their 633-car garage. In violation of the very Master Plan they themselves had authored, MTA, BRA, and Mayor Menino approved both of these replacements. The new owners (CalPERS) bought the project and the company from the former owners, lock-stock-and-barrel, including this liability. So everyone has become a party to this switcheroo. If MTA, BRA, and Mayor Menino weren?t sincere about creating and maintaining this public park, then they never should have illustrated it and committed to it on 10 different pages of their Master Plan, which took 50 public meetings, two years, and $1 million to produce. They published their Master Plan with great fanfare on 28 June 2000; but 7 years later, the promised park has been replaced with a 633-car garage.
Q-46. What is the new owner?s actual involvement?
A-46. The new owner structure is detailed in my Q&A #14. Columbus Center doesn?t appear on CalPERS? Web site because they keep all their speculative real estate ventures ?off the books? of California state government, via their CUIP subsidiary, which MacFarlane Urban Realty Company manages for them. The 99-year lease signed on 2 May 2006 showed a general plan to fund the project with $145 million investor funds from CalPERS + $438 million in commercial loans to CalPERS from Anglo Irish Bank + "as much as possible" from 14 public subsidies split by CalPERS, MacFarlane, Winn, and MTA. Yes, MTA, as a revenue-sharing and profit-sharing partner, would also benefit from the project's public subsidy scheme. On 7 and 12 July 2007, the new owners claimed costs totaled $700 million (?Democrats oppose Patrick on Grant,? Boston Globe and ?Owners to be liable for new Pike tunnel,? Boston Herald); but by 19 July, they said the cost was $800 million (?DiMasi rips $10m grant for project,? Boston Globe). This explains the new owners? renewed requests that the public foot the bills for both their costs and their profits.
Q-47. Should a project ever be designed as any one individual wishes?
A-47. No, never. Instead, projects at this and every air rights location:
? (a) should be competitively bid in a free market (as required by state law and the Master Plan);
? (b), should fully disclose all public subsidies from the outset per GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards); and
? (c) should adhere to the Master Plan specifications (No owner who raises the 150' tower to a 420' skyscraper should ever be allowed to replace the required, contiguous, 2-acre public park with a 633-car garage).
If these 3 principles are followed, any reasonable person should be pleased with the results.
