Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Cojapo]

Re: Columbus Center

Don't live in a major city if you don't want development. Someone made a great point here. The city was here before any one of us and it will be here long after. Cities grow, shrink, build up, tear down.....it's all cycles. Would it suck to live next to these? Yes. You kind of have to expect if you move into Boston, there is a chance that some kind of development will/could happen near you.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Winn Development owned the proposal from 1996-2006, but sold it in 2006 to CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, which now funds and controls the venture. The several Winn people who are under contract to the new owners for completing the project are entitled to a very small share of some future profits, because they retained a very small share of ownership. But it is far too small to count on any matter for which a vote is taken.

Please please please stop with this twisted representation of how real estate finance works. As someone who works for a equity investor, we take limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, and have a controlling ownership stake in every deal, but we are still the LIMITED PARTNER....we are NOT THE DEVELOPER!!!! CalPERS is NOT a developer, that would be the members of Winn who are designated as general partners.

I don't know if it is intentional on your part to try to present this deal is someway that is unusually, or sketchy, or if you truly just read reports and have no comprehensive understanding of real estate finance, but to present this as Winn/Roger Cassin having no longer having control of this project is misleading at best.

While you come across as having done thorough research, and possessing knowledge of this project, I have to wonder if your rhetoric is based more on regurgitation of words from documents as opposed to independent thought on the broad range of subject matters that you are rallying against.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

By the way - I was joking about moving away from all that noise. Consider it just some gentle advice to Ned. There is nothing at all that he or Shirley Kressel can do to stop Columbus Center. They fought it and they failed. So I was joking about moving away instead of being subjected to years and years of construction in his front "yard"

I say let him rant and rave, he has no clue at all about real estate development or finance, and it's almost amusing to hear him spew these things.

He has no impact at all on this project - none. Nobody cares about his opinions and only trash rags like the South End News will offer him ink. There is simply no need to engage in a point-by-point deconstruction of these raving, wide-eyed diatribes. Just ignore then - that's exactly what the BRA has done, that's exactly what the mayor has done, that's exactly what everyone of any importance has done.

I hate to so personally pick on a fellow member of this board, but since he is writing these things in newsprint, I am afraid that he is inviting this sort of public ridicule.

When the capital markets loosen up a little, Columbus Center starts rising. It's just that simple!

 

[tommym96]

Re: Columbus Center

Please please please stop with this twisted representation of how real estate finance works. As someone who works for a equity investor, we take limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, and have a controlling ownership stake in every deal, but we are still the LIMITED PARTNER....we are NOT THE DEVELOPER!!!! CalPERS is NOT a developer, that would be the members of Winn who are designated as general partners.

I don't know if it is intentional on your part to try to present this deal is someway that is unusually, or sketchy, or if you truly just read reports and have no comprehensive understanding of real estate finance, but to present this as Winn/Roger Cassin having no longer having control of this project is misleading at best.

While you come across as having done thorough research, and possessing knowledge of this project, I have to wonder if your rhetoric is based more on regurgitation of words from documents as opposed to independent thought on the broad range of subject matters that you are rallying against.

 

[BostonObserver]

Re: Columbus Center

This thead is now worthless

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Hello, Atlrvr.

. . . please stop with this twisted representation of how real estate finance works. As someone who works for a equity investor, we take limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, and have a controlling ownership stake in every deal, but we are still the LIMITED PARTNER....we are NOT THE DEVELOPER!!!!

When you re-read my messages, you?ll notice that I?ve posted nothing here about how your own firm works, what positions it takes, what control it has, or when or whether it acts as a developer, so you don?t need to shout about your [unidentified] firm.

CalPERS is NOT a developer. . .

This discussion is not about what CalPERS ?is? or ?is not?; it is about its control of the Columbus Center company and the Columbus Center project. The 1 May 2006 contract that created the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC arrangement confirms that CalPERS, through CUIP, and then through MURC, owns and controls CWCC (the Columbus Center company).

. . . the members of Winn who are designated as general partners.

The contract has no ?limited partners.? The contract has no ?general partners.?

. . . to present this as Winn/Roger Cassin having no longer having control of this project is misleading at best. . .

I did not write the contract, or argue how it should be written; I only reported what?s written in it. The contract clearly defines control of both the company and the project, with execution of the work left to others, but with every significant decision controlled by CalPERS-CUIP-MURC, including:

?CalPERS-CUIP-MURC Right to Make Major Decisions?
?Budget Approval?
?Hotel Management Agreement Approval?
?Business Plan?
?Phases?
?Developer Duties?
and
?CalPERS-CUIP-MURC Termination of Winn Affiliates? (there is no provision for ?Winn Termination of CalPERS-CUIP-MURC Affiliates?).

. . . I have to wonder if your rhetoric is based more on regurgitation of words from documents as opposed to independent thought on the broad range of subject matters that you are rallying against.

Most forum members arguing about ?what the contract says? also did not read it, do not even have it, and thus remain at a keen disadvantage on this topic. My conclusions were formed only years after Columbus Center was first proposed, and only after a great deal of research, independent thought, and consultation with experienced people from multiple development-related professions, including a reading of this contract. Of course, the core principles for evaluating the proposal ? competitive bidding, public auditing, master plan compliance, telling the truth about subsidies ? were around long before that.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, I recall you saying you worked in IT. Have you also gone to law school, taken a course in contracts? Or, have you also worked for a real estate developer, and become familiar with the terms and provisions of development contracts?

In the discussion earlier in this thread about UFPs, I think its fair to say you mis-read and/or mis-interpreted California's efforts re: UFPs, and from which, you then extrapolated a duty upon you to pro-actively inform prospective buyers of your condo that their health could be affected from living there as the condo was within a so-called toxic zone (for UFPs).

Because of this, the veracity of your reading and interpretation of other complex and (in this case) lengthy document(s) might also be questioned.

 

[Cojapo]

Re: Columbus Center

This back and forth is kind of annoying. It serves no point since this website is devoted to development. I think most on here are here because we enjoy following the growth of Boston. If I want to hear how development is bad, I'd take Vivian Li, Marty Waltz or even Steve Bailey out to lunch!
Can we stop with this?

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

I'd respectfully disagree - Columbus Center is a major development in the history of our city. I'm not going to debate point-by-point with somebody who makes it a habit of mangling the truth. Yet on the other hand, this is a development worth arguing over, discussing, and debating so I don't mind all this back and forth.

It's important to stop misinformation at the source. People (developers especially) have a tendency to just roll their eyes at these activist-types when they start making wacky claims. Claims such as "building on a highway costs the same as building on flat land", or that "I'll have to warn potential buyers that my condo is in a toxic UFP zone..." Rather than ignore these claims and roll your eyes, it's important to call out these misstatements and shine a light on the people who are using these types of tactics in some vain attempt to derail a project that is permitted, enjoys wide-spread city support, and will be a great addition to the city for generations to come.

In a way, it's like the Swift Boat people - John Kerry rolled his eyes and said "are you kidding me?" and didn't even bother answering them. And in the end, he obviously should have. If we let activist-types jump up in down in hysterics spewing crazytalk and don't answer them, shine a light on them, and expose them - these people can do real damage with their misinformation, half-truths, and downright lies.

 

[PaulC]

Re: Columbus Center

Why don't you guys meet for coffee, not drinks, that would be scary, and hash this out. When you are done post the results.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . you mis-read and/or mis-interpreted California's efforts re: UFPs. . .

Years ago, physicians paid by tobacco companies used to falsely testify that cigarettes actually improved smokers? health, but science, awareness, and public standards improved. Years ago, UFP air pollution was proven to exist, it was proven to be harmful to public health, and government agencies recommended not building near UFP sources. As the UFP science grows, awareness of it increases, and people no longer accept that just because something isn?t already illegal then it must be safe.

The duty to disclose UFP pollution is driven by people?s ethics, morality, common sense, and respect for fairness, all of which define and influence the evolution of regulations, the law, and court interpretations. Most Boston brokers, buyers, and property owners I spoke with agreed that sellers and brokers are obligated to share UFP information, especially since it discretely affects thousands of homes along the transportation corridor, but nowhere else.

If a law were to be enacted next month requiring UFP disclosure, there are some people who would disclose UFP if selling next month, yet conceal UFP if selling this month, arguing that ?it?s not illegal yet.? It?s equally unconscionable to build tunnel vents that exhaust UFP instead of scrubbing it, purely because ?it?s not illegal yet.?

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, I recall you saying you worked in IT. Have you also gone to law school, taken a course in contracts? Or, have you also worked for a real estate developer, and become familiar with the terms and provisions of development contracts?

If forum members who don?t like the information I posted would get the public records as I did, and read them, do other research, and form opinions on the available knowledge, they might improve their own understanding and contribute to the forum, which was established to discuss Boston?s built environment. But attacking other members? training, education, experience, work habits, age, sleep hours, whether they own or rent, and so on is pointless, especially when the attacks are directed only at posters of information that the attackers simply don?t like.

Forum members who anonymously hide themselves and their affiliations behind cartoon names are hypocritical to demand identification and credentials only from those with whom they disagree. Either identities and credentials are either required for everyone, or else for no one. I fully identified myself, and my sources, so that any debate would be about information, not personalities. Those who did not like the information I posted are still arguing ? anonymously ? from their closets.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Don't live in a major city if you don't want development. . . You kind of have to expect if you move into Boston, there is a chance that some kind of development will/could happen near you.

This back and forth is kind of annoying. It serves no point since this website is devoted to development. . . If I want to hear how development is bad, I'd take Vivian Li, Marty Waltz or even Steve Bailey out to lunch!

Cojapo,
I have always chosen to work and live in major cities, and I fully support completely tunneling both interstate transportation corridors below and developing them above. I expect development to occur, and I encourage it whenever it?s responsible, as do Representative Walz, Globe journalist Bailey, and activist Li.

Many here appreciate the information I provided. I joined because so many members were supposing and assuming and wondering and repeating rumors, but few had done much research.

You seem to think the site?s purpose is to promote and cheer-lead for all development, but I believe its purpose is to objectively discuss responsible development. Perhaps the sponsors can clarify why the board exists, who the members actually are, and what it is supposed to accomplish.

 

[mcus29]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned's got a point. I think a big reason for the negativity torward him is due to the timing of his entrance into the forum. His posts started when Columbus Center was annouced to halt construction. I wonder if his posts were occurring at a positive point of this project, (which seems to be a small window of time).

 

[TedG]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned's got a point. I think a big reason for the negativity torward him is due to the timing of his entrance into the forum. His posts started when Columbus Center was annouced to halt construction. I wonder if his posts were occurring at a positive point of this project, (which seems to be a small window of time).

Actually, Ned Flaherty first stated posting in August 2007.
The negativity towards him is, as he stated, only because he is providing information that Columbus Center cheerleades don't like.

 

[Cojapo]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, my comments aren't completely directed towards you. It was a generalization to those who oppose development. They have a louder voice than the rest and to no fault other than mine and everyone else that doesn't get involved. I have nothing against your opinion. You live next to this, I live 60 miles north. It just seems that those people that are against development in Boston are self serving. I don't cheerlead. I just question motive.
I wonder what else is left to be said about this? It's on hold and maybe this thread should be as well.
This is a development forum. Maybe their should be a seperated Debate forum somewhere in this website. I am probably wrong, but it's just my opinion.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Actually he is not talking about things we don't 'like', just things we don't see as important enough to derail the project.
I don't care how much profit the developer makes.
I don't care if the taxpayers have to pay a few extra cents to help repair the urban fabric (regardless of what the developer promised)
I don't care (nor do I yet fully believe) that Columbus Center will create a deadly "toxic zone".

And before you claim the I or most forumers here are 'pro development' cheerleaders, please read the SC&L thread. Hell, read most of threads here.
This forum is filled with bile and venom towards developers who insist on building cheap, crappy, suburban quality buildings in heart of Boston.
The developments we do cheerlead, we do so because then enhance the urban fabric and make Boston a better city.
I understand that to some, the issues that CC raise are very important, but if you take the long view they will be forgotten within a generation. The buildings (or lack thereof) may last centuries.
So yes, Ned has a lot of valid points. But they are only valid from a short-sighted point of view.

The City is the thing. We are merely players.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

I would have more patience, but when someone writes something like "sellers and brokers are obligated" to do this or that, it annoys me. Mr Flaherty has done this in a letter he sent to me, specifically, and he has done so on this site, on several occasions.

I am well aware of what my "obligations" are, both legally, and morally. I don't care to hear someone challenge either.

Mr Flaherty is not a real estate agent, has not taken the courses required to one. What he knows about the business could fit on the head of a pin.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . when someone writes something like "sellers and brokers are obligated" to do this or that, it annoys me. . . I am well aware of what my "obligations" are, both legally, and morally. . . Mr Flaherty is not a real estate agent. . .

Hello, Jimbo Jones, a.k.a. Broker John Keith of Keith Real Estate, 528 Tremont Street.

No, I?m not a real estate agent, and never said I was. And yes, you are one. Your Web site says you work as both a seller?s broker (selling condominiums for the ?highest price possible, while keeping problems to a minimum?) and also as a buyer?s broker (making sales ?as smooth and easy as possible?).

I wrote to you on 20 March 2008 because, in addition to showing the wrong street addresses and the wrong number of residence units, your brokerage site omitted facts that every buyer needs. It thought you would appreciate having the information. For example:

The Columbus Center condominium owners are privately liable for the design, construction, inspection, maintenance, calamity insurance, and error-and-omission insurance for the privately owned transportation corridor tunnels. These are material conditions, unique to Columbus Center, which prospective buyers need, and which they depend upon brokers to provide.

Anyone buying a Columbus Center residence or parking unit also becomes a tenant of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, with financial and legal responsibility for the subterranean tunnels that enclose the 7 rail lanes (CSX freight, Amtrak, MBTA commuter rail, subway) and the 8 turnpike road lanes along the interstate transportation corridor.

Neither the government nor the developer itemized the 99-year cost of those responsibilities, and on 2 May 2006, the 99-year lease shifted 7 tunnel-related expenses from the developer and the government to the condominium owners:

■ periodic inspection by tunnel-bridge structural engineers for at least 99 years;
■ tunnel preventive maintenance for at least 99 years;
■ tunnel corrective repairs for at least 99 years;
■ government-mandated tunnel upgrades for at least 99 years;
■ government-mandated all new tunnels whenever needed (about every 40 years);
■ quarterly insurance premiums for owner liability coverage; and
■ quarterly insurance premiums for developer?s error/omission coverage.

Forum members who find this startling should not attack me for reporting it, but instead just read the publicly available information that confirms it:

■ 99-year lease (3,344 pages);
■ MTA tunnel inspection protocols for privately owned public tunnels (18 pages); and
■ ?Loophole could sink future owners of condo complex? in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly / Exhibit A, 27 November 2007 (4 pages).

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Interesting historical fact:

Charles Bulfinch spent time in debtors prison due to some poorly structured development deals.

Does this fact in any, shape or form effect how we live in, work in or enjoy the buildings he built for this city?