Re: Columbus Center
Ned errors: "Ellis Corporation predates 1982." . . . "Ellis Corporation not dissolved by Secretary of State." . . . "Ellis Corporation held annual meeting in 2004." . . .
I never made any of the above statements. I wrote about the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association only as an
organization, not as a corporation. The
organization formed before 1982, the organization was never dissolved by itself or anyone else, the organization did hold its 2004 annual meeting, and for decades the Mayor and City Hall have recognized the organization as the official ? and the only ? neighborhood organization for its area.
Anyone who disagrees with him must be either a mindless cheerleader or represents "one of the 52 firms associated with the development team". Care to identify which board members to whom you refer? . . . Anyone who won't give his/her name, rank and serial number is deceitful . . .
I never said that anyone disagreeing must be a cheerleader or a developer affiliate. And I never said that everyone who remains anonymous is deceptive.
What I said is that most forum members are anonymous, many are cheerleaders, and some are affiliated with the development team. I said that because the developer?s business plan included seeding public and community groups such as this with pro-project cheerleaders, there is no reason for them to abandon their plan, and there?s every reason for them to continue following it.
If you want to each forum member?s name, get them to identify themselves.
"We get to tell it like it is precisely because big brother isn't looking over our shoulders, and we don't risk getting fired by clients who might disagree, or denied permits and approvals by anyone at City Hall who might stumble on to this site. . . Politics is a vengeful business."
And business includes vengeful politics, too. It?s true that anonymous members can say whatever they like without risking job loss or project disapproval. But that seeming benefit also operates as a huge disservice to the forum, the public, and even the anonymous members who are afraid to identify themselves (because their anonymity discounts their opinions).
Anonymous members can be sincere people with legitimate messages, or they can be deceitful, paid posers working as lobbyists, marketers, public relations strategists, political operatives, and so on. This forum makes no distinction between the two groups.
"Anyone on the CAC who disagreed with Ned was corruptly influenced by the developers. . . . Ned, care to give us one of your trademark bullet point, numbered answers, identifying each person?"
Yes! The previous answer, which has remained available since it was posted on 1 April, is repeated below for your convenience.
Q-58. Which seats did the developer own on the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee?
A-58. On 1 June 1997, Mayor Menino signed a Memorandum-of-Understanding drafted by the developers? attorneys that gave the developers ownership of most seats on the Mayor?s so-called Citizens Advisory Committee.
Then the development team began choosing and interviewing people to install into the committee seats that they owned. The developers notified MTA who they wanted, MTA notified BRA, BRA told Mayor Menino who he was allowed to appoint, and the mayor sent 7 appointment letters to:
? government affairs director Joy Conway
? real estate attorney Cynthia Keliher
? real estate broker John Neale
? labor union electrician Perry Yee
? tax attorney Christine Colley
? architect Jim Alexander
? architect David Hacin
The 4 public members democratically nominated by their communities were:
? Back Bay Architectural Commission chair & Back Bay Association delegate Tony Gordon
? South End Ellis Neighborhood Assn. delegate John Kiger, replaced by attorney Mark Grossman, replaced by architect Peter Pogorski
? attorney & Neighborhood Assn. of the Back Bay past president Fred Mauet
? South End attorney Mark Merante
On every major issue, members in the developer-owned seats voted exactly as the developer wished. The public never had a chance.
Ned doesn't want ANYTHING except the status quo.
That?s untrue. For 18 years, I?ve enthusiastically lobbied for full development of both of Boston?s urban interstate transportation corridors, including full tunneling of the railways and roadways below, and full development of the spaces above.
I participated in creating the Turnpike Master Plan, and I have always supported its principles and stipulations. The Columbus Center proposal fundamentally violates that Plan in 7 ways, because it . . .
● skipped the developer qualification cycle;
● has no competitive bids;
● has no financial disclosure;
● deleted the required, contiguous 2-acre park;
● privatized the public parks;
● sought 15 subsidies totaling $245 million after promising to be subsidy-free;
and
● now seeks permission to finish construction 12 - 22 years after approval.
The developers, the politicians they?ve paid, and some of the forum cheerleaders often threaten the public with this either/or decision: either build Columbus Center now, or else be stuck with nothing forever.
The only reason there?s just one proposal is that in 1996 the MTA promised the current developer that all competitors would be permanently discouraged and refused. So, that ?Columbus-Center-or-nothing? notion is false. Those aren?t the only two choices.
The best choice of all is the third choice: develop responsibly as outlined in the Turnpike Master Plan, using competitive bids, from qualified applicants, whose finances are disclosed.
Before that can happen, MTA needs to evict its existing tenants, which is growing increasingly easier because they defaulted over two years ago. This next step has been under discussion among legislators, government agencies, and taxpayers for quite some time. Stay tuned.
