Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

Ned - great post. Winn should hire a PR firm as good as yours to help him frame the discussion from their point of view.

I think the "truth" is fluid here. Are you right? Are you wrong? Who knows. The reality is that this project needs a real developer, like Boston Properties or Hines to take over and exert some professionalism to the project. Their first step would be to hire a well-connected PR firm to lead the conversation with transparency and honesty.

Clearly, it's in the best interests of the entire city to have the Turnpike scar decked over and the site is perfect for a very tall, dense building (just one block to Boston's tallest building).
 
Re: Columbus Center

JimboJones said:
.I think Winn Companies should run a loud drill every day from 7 AM - 3 PM every day, just to annoy the neighbors.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that would improve the finances or speed up construction.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Q-49. Who is Ned Flaherty?
A-49. I am an urban planning activist specializing in air rights development for the last 18 years. I was a vice president of the South End Ellis Neighborhood Association for several years, and 12 years ago co-founded the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods.

I wholly endorse the development over both of Boston?s air rights corridors (I-90, I-93), and, with hundreds of others, spent 2 years helping create the Turnpike Master Plan. I do live alongside the turnpike, but as a matter of civic responsibility, will continue to press for air rights development, regardless of my home or work location.

Since Columbus Center was first proposed 13 years ago, I?ve attended hundreds of public hearings and one-on-one office meetings, pulled over 15,000 pages of public records, and frequently show busy journalists where they can find the facts.

As an advocate for air rights development, I predicted most of Columbus Center?s setbacks long before they happened. Below are the main criticisms of this individual proposal and the public process that produced it. Details are in my August 2007 forum messages, Q&A #s 1-47.

1. Developer appointed his own review committee. ? Mayor Menino gave most seats on his Advisory Committee to the developer, and let the developer dictate whom the mayor was allowed to appoint. Members in developer-owned seats always voted as the developer wished, whereas the democratically nominated members always voted as the communities wished, but the Committee was rigged from the outset by its 7-to-4 majority, and the public never had a chance. In violation of the Open Meeting Law, the Committee voted to prohibit citizens from recording public hearings, even though the BRA secretly recorded them for years.

2. No competitive bid ? In 1997, Winn got no-bid, no-disclosure, perpetual control of his air rights from MTA Chairman James Kerasiotes, who was desperately trying to raise cash and conceal turnpike finances to avoid prison time. That sweetheart deal was exposed three years later (?State-tied firms bankrolled tax cut?, Boston Globe, 19 November 2000). On 1 August 2003, the SEC found Kerasiotes guilty of fraud, but Winn already had control of the property.

3. No financial disclosure ? Columbus Center, MTA, and BRA refused to allow the independent, public audit of expenses, revenues, profits, and subsidies as dictated by the Commonwealth?s GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards). Such an audit would have exposed ? and prevented ? 13 wasted years and the inevitable financial melt-down.

4. Public subsidy for a project proposed as subsidy-free ? See my earlier forum message dated 30 March 2008.

5. UFP air pollution ? The MTA is building 15 exhaust vents that will pump 6.3 million cubic feet per minute of UFP (ultrafine particulate matter) from the 7 rail lanes and 8 road lanes below into the lungs of people working and living along I-90 above. UFP pollution causes dramatically higher rates of lost wages, hospitalization, life-long illness, and premature death. Because UFP occurs only in the 800 feet immediately north and south of the transportation corridor, few people have heard of it, but it is the deadliest air pollution known. Because of UFP-related harm to public health, projects such as Columbus Center now are prohibited in California, so California is building it here instead. Because California concealed the UFP air pollution, it was never addressed in the impact reports.

6. Master Plan Violation ? The Turnpike Master Plan requires a 2-acre public park whenever there?s a skyscraper on Parcel 16. Columbus Center promised to comply, but then replaced the required park with a 633-car garage. The 7 members of the Advisory Committee who sat in seats owned by the developer voted exactly as their sponsor wished; the 4 democratically nominated members objected.

7. Public parks converted to private gardens ? Citizens were always promised public parks that would be forever publicly owned, maintained, and operated. Columbus Center quietly broke that promise, in a secret, never-publicized agreement signed 14 December 2006 by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, and also in the lease signed 2 May 2006 by the MTA.

Q-50. How does one get a copy of the 99-year lease?
A-50. As a public record, the 3,344-page lease containing all terms, exhibits, and amendments is available to any citizen within 10 days of request, either in electronic form for the cost of discs plus postage, or in paper copy for $669 plus postage. Contact: MTA Associate General Counsel Megan Waters (voice: 617-248-2816, facsimile: 617-523-0729); 10 Park Plaza, Suite 4; Boston, MA 02116-3970. MTA often stretches the 10-day legal deadline into many months, so persistence is required.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

Here's a pic of the Columbus Center site from a block away, by me:

IMG_1400.jpg


Too bad this got cancelled, I was really looking forward to this.
 
Re: Columbus Center

palindrome said:
Ned, do you have a link or source for any of those figures (such as a copy of the lease), as i would like to read them.
Click to expand...
Having gone round and round with Mr. Flaherty previously in this thread, I, having again searched today, am unable to find anything in the very public records of CalPERS, that CalPERS, CIM, or MacFarlane bought or currently owns the entirety of Columbus Center.

If Mr. Flaherty can document the veracity of his CalPERS-owns-Columbus Center claim, then that would help give credence to some of his other assertions.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Q-51. Where?s the proof that CalPERS owns Columbus Center?
A-51. The proof is in three forms: (1) professional news coverage, (2) public records, and (3) Columbus Center?s public relations agent.

1. Professional news coverage ? ArchBoston members already know about the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC partnership, because for the last two years it?s been regularly mentioned in business news, including coverage re-posted to this forum. Here?s 9 of those articles.

? ?Irish Bank, CalPERS in line as backers of Columbus Center? (Boston Globe, 11 March 2006)
? ?Columbus Center ground and air rights lease agreements? (MTA, 26 May 2006)
? ?Is Columbus Center up in the air?? (Boston Globe, 25 August 2006)
? ?Columbus Center financing remains right up in the air? (Banker & Tradesman, 9 October 2006)
? ?Deal near to give Columbus Center plan a boost? (Boston Globe, 5 December 2006)
? ?Columbus Center is set to build? (Boston Globe, 5 October 2007)
? ?Turnpike may halt Columbus Center job? (Boston Globe, 13 December 2007)
? ?Columbus Center plot thickens? (South End News, 6 March 2008)
? ?Pike tower plan stalls? (Boston Herald, 28 March 2008)

2. Public Records ? Forum member Stellarfun calls CalPERS records ?very public.?

That is untrue.

CalPERS publicizes successful investments that make the agency look effective, but CalPERS conceals other ventures, such as the increasingly doubtful Columbus Center. Those real estate records are moved out of CalPERS so that they stay secret, and beyond the reach of public records laws.

But despite the owners? efforts at total secrecy, Columbus Center?s corporate identities had to be disclosed in thousands of pages of city, state, and federal public subsidy applications and contracts. Those documents revealed that on 15 March 2006, a pyramid was formed that protects the Columbus Center venture with six layers of insulation (like Russian nesting dolls, in which each larger doll conceals a smaller one inside).

Layer 1. The $240 billion CalPERS is the ultimate owner and decision-maker:
CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System)
?A Component Unit of the State of California?
Lincoln Plaza North \ 400 Q Street ? Sacramento, CA 95814-6210

Layer 2. CalPERS (above) owns CUIP:
CUIP LLC (California Urban Investment Partners Limited Liability Company)
This empty shell is a legal entity with no telephone, facsimile, e-mail, or Web site.

Layer 3. CUIP (above) is managed by MURC:
MURC (MacFarlane Urban Realty Company)
201 Spear Street, 12th Floor ? San Francisco, CA 94105-1635

Layer 4. MURC (above) controls CWCC:
CWCC (CUIP-Winn Columbus Center LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company)
c/o Winn Development Company
6 Faneuil Hall Marketplace ? Boston, MA 02109-1620

Layer 5. CWCC (above) contains CCW-SPE:
Columbus Center Winn SPE Limited Liability Company
6 Faneuil Hall Marketplace ? Boston, MA 02109-1620

Layer 6. CCW-SPE (above) contains Winn Manager:
Winn Limited Liability Company Manager, Incorporated
6 Faneuil Hall Marketplace ? Boston, MA 02109-1620

This 6-layer pyramid also has about 50 additional sub-contractors, business partners, and advisors.

One of the reasons that corporations create such highly insulated structures is to thwart future lawsuits from customers, vendors, sub-contractors, and government.

For more details, read the MTA?s 3,344-page lease (terms + exhibits + amendments), and/or purchase the thousands of pages of public records on file at the city, state, and federal agencies where Columbus Center has sought subsidies.

3. Public relations agent ? Most citizen inquiries to CalPERS, CUIP, MURC, and/or CWCC are ignored, but journalists get redirected to CalPERS? local public relations agent for Columbus Center: Regan Communications CEO Alan Eisner (voice: 617-248-2800; facsimile: 617-488-2830; e-mail: AEisner@ReganComm.com; 106 Union Wharf; Boston, MA 02109-1281). CalPERS pays Eisner to control what the public thinks. But what he has told the media does not match what?s on file at government agencies, which suggests that either CalPERS? subsidy applications are fraudulent, or else CalPERS? spin is deceptive, or both.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

Please, people. Do not encourage him. It's like scratching skin infected with poison ivy.
 
NIMBYism at its finest

Boston's public process killed this project, and to say otherwise is disingenuous. I mean, come on, 13 years? If this was ready to go up, say, even 5 years ago when banks and investors were throwing money by the truckload into real estate, this would be built and fully occupied by now.

I'm sure the plan all along was just to delay this to the point where it missed the building cycle, and it looks like this may have succeeded. In that case, congratulations -- you'll retain your precious views of that noisy, gaping, exhaust-spewing gash tearing through the city. Well, for a few more years at least. Yay.
 
Re: Columbus Center

The professional, thoughtful members will appreciate this update; cheerleaders and name-callers will not.

Q-52. Is public process the cause of the 13-year duration or the owner?s lack of readiness?
A-52. No. Owners and bankers don?t halt projects because of criticism given 5 years earlier, so the 2004 ? 2008 project failures can?t be blamed on the 2001 ? 2003 public hearings. It was the schedule, funding, and readiness that mortally wounded the project, as shown in the public hearing minutes and public subsidy applications.

Schedule
■ The Mayor gave total scheduling control to the project owners, not to the public process.
■ Every major failure occurred years after the owners had declared the public process was ended.
■ Every deadline that the owners set for themselves and then missed was of their own doing.
■ Public hearings took only 2.5 years; re-planning by owners took the other 10.5.

Funding
■ The owners never got even one bank to disburse the construction funds. But none of the rejecting banks ever blamed public process for declining to finance.
■ The owners failed to meet the 19-page list of bank lending criteria issued 10 May 2006. But public process was not one of those criteria.
■ Even the business partners ? CUIP, MURC, CWCC, MTA, and the $240 billion CalPERS ? don?t have the confidence to proceed. But the public process from 5 years ago is not what's frightening them today.

Readiness
■ Owners of truly ready projects don?t...
... ask for an 18-month hiatus.
... recall all their workers and equipment.
... demand guarantees for 9 public subsidies.
... threaten to quit.
■ The owners repeatedly said that the next step is just a few months away ? for 13 years.
■ They said it again last week.
■ Never have they been truly ready.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Mr. Flaherty, I've never disputed that CalPERS funds CUIP, and that MacFarlane Partners manages CUIP. And that MacFarlane (managing CUIP) is the entity by which CalPERS has channeled money into Columbus Center. But I've yet to see any proof to substantiate your claim the "California" took over [sole] ownership of the Columbus Center project in 2006.

CalPERS participation in Columbus Center is more accurately described as a joint venture, the specifications for which are defined in some detail in CalPERS real estate investment policies.

CalPERS does not hide those real estate investments that have gone sour. Your assertion that they do comes close to accusing them of criminal conduct. An examination of CalPERS annual reports will reveal listings of real estate assets that have lost value; they even use red ink to delineate the bad investments.

Indeed, it would be interesting if "California" did actually own Columbus Center: it would be a situation of the sovereign having to deal with the sovereign. I'm not sure whether that would simplify or complicate matters.
 
Re: Columbus Center

ahh...How I've missed having canned answers proferred to questions I didn't know had been asked. (and in a helpful numbered format!) I'm sorry to poke fun Ned, but it has been said before and not much has changed: this tactic is high handed.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Flaherty's knowledge of this process is great stuff. keep informing us
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
The professional, thoughtful members will appreciate this update; cheerleaders and name-callers will not.
Click to expand...

I really don't appreciate you beginning every post with this. You need to understand that this is a casual, (mostly) pro-development/density forum, and accept everything that comes with it. That being said, i really don't like the way you post. this isn't a Q&A session.
 
Re: Columbus Center

The arguing is pointless. There is enough blame to be spread around here.

This project's collapse can be safely shared between the 'concerned' neighbors and the inept developers.

Perhaps a more sophisticated developer could have got this project completed despite the hurdles placed in their way
Or perhaps this developer could have done the job if they didn't have to deal with so many problems.

The fact of the matter is, now the project is dead (or, technically, 'on hold') and the city is worse off for it.

On this we can all agree. :(
 
Re: Columbus Center

I agree. I was looking forward to watching this progress. To bad.
What are the chances that another developer comes in and takes this over? Can Winn transfer rights?
 
Re: Columbus Center

It's amazing how long it takes to get things done here in Boston. Whether it be developers, public process, permiting, it always seems to be something. That sucks then. I am going to hold out faith that something miraculous will happen, that instead of this, a developer will come in, propose a beautiful 550' plus tower, with townhouses and parks along the other parcels....obviously I have an active imagination!
 
Re: Columbus Center

This is builidng above railroad tracks and a major highway that have to be kept open at all times. That's certainly going to take longer than conventional construction.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Q-53. How does one get a copy of the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC contract?
A-53. The ?First Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of CUIP-Winn Columbus Center LLC? (1 May 2006) includes the company?s sale price, ownership, project budget, funding, profit allocation, decision-making control, business plan, requirements to commence each project phase, and ? most importantly ? CalPERS? procedure for ejecting Winn from the project after a 10-day notice.

That contract is an 87-page public record available to any citizen within 10 days of request, either in electronic form for the cost of discs plus postage, or in paper copy for $17.40 plus postage. It was disclosed by BRA Deputy Director Francesco Tocci (voice: 617-918-6261; facsimile: 617-918-6265/6266; BIDFA - Boston Industrial Development Financing Authority; 22 Dry Dock Avenue, 3rd Floor; Boston, MA 02210-2386. BRA often stretches the 10-day legal deadline into many months, so persistence is required.

The ?Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of CUIP-Winn Columbus Center LLC? (28 March 2007) is Lease Amendment Exhibit Z. It is available from MTA as outlined in yesterday?s forum message Q-&-A #50.

Q-54. Besides the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC contracts, what else confirms the project?s pyramid structure?
A-54. The 2008 lease amendment and 2006 newspaper coverage.

1. Lease Amendment and Lease Amendment Summary ? These MTA documents confirm that:
(1) CalPERS funds CUIP, which then funds MURC, which then funds CWCC.
(2) CalPERS funds 97% of CUIP?s obligations.
(3) CalPERS would have funded the $285 million in guarantees, had they not walked away last week.
(4) CalPERS normally restricts CUIP-MURC to $100 million maximum investment and $300 million maximum project cost.

2. Newspaper coverage ? The Boston Globe confirmed the pyramid structure. It reported CalPERS as owners, MURC as investors, and Winn as a minor profit-sharer (11 March 2006), and reported that forcing Massachusetts into a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies was a demand from CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, not from Winn (25 August 2006).

Two Clarifications

A. CalPERS has controlling ownership, not sole ownership.

B. CalPERS does conceal some sour investments. For example, CalPERS-CUIP-MURC formed their Columbus Center company on 15 March 2006 and signed a 99-year lease on 2 May 2006, but neither transaction was ever publicized.

CalPERS? scheme of giving its cash to a private firm to keep the details secret may be unethical, but isn?t criminal, since all investments and losses eventually appear in some CalPERS accounting category. But the category name, the summarizing of the individual transactions, the reporting delays, and the absence of press releases all effectively conceal the audit details from the public. CalPERS-CUIP-MURC?s costs, risks, and losses in Columbus Center during 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 have yet to be publicized, or become visible in reports, and thus remain concealed from the public.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Q-49. Who is Ned Flaherty?
A-49. I am an urban planning activist specializing in air rights development for the last 18 years. I was a vice president of the South End Ellis Neighborhood Association for several years, and 12 years ago co-founded the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods.

I wholly endorse the development over both of Boston?s air rights corridors (I-90, I-93), and, with hundreds of others, spent 2 years helping create the Turnpike Master Plan. I do live alongside the turnpike, but as a matter of civic responsibility, will continue to press for air rights development, regardless of my home or work location.

Since Columbus Center was first proposed 13 years ago, I?ve attended hundreds of public hearings and one-on-one office meetings, pulled over 15,000 pages of public records, and frequently show busy journalists where they can find the facts.

As an advocate for air rights development, I predicted most of Columbus Center?s setbacks long before they happened. Below are the main criticisms of this individual proposal and the public process that produced it. Details are in my August 2007 forum messages, Q&A #s 1-47.
Click to expand...

Fascinating resume Ned.
You obviously care a great deal about the city and it's urban fabric.

I realize it is not an air-rights project but do you have any interest in helping us save the Shreve Crump & Low buildings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top