Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: UFP remediation example

You have continued to postulate that technology to scrub UFPs from highway sources exists, and yet have not produced a single example of such technology being built and used, anywhere.

Yes, the technology exists to design and build vents that remove UFPs from the tunnel air before it?s expelled into offices and homes above and nearby. No, it has not been used this way yet. But don?t misinterpret the fact that because this application has not yet been built elsewhere the technology doesn't exist for building it here. If everyone behaved that way, then mankind would never have built anything new at all. The people working on this (not me) will make the announcement.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Columbus Center

^^please show an example of this technology, and a website of a company currently making them.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Kenmore Square

Although for 13 years, my work has been concentrated at Columbus Center, it was never ? and is not now ? restricted to just that. But, as the city?s longest running urban planning failure, this project?s story shall continue for quite some time.


They?ve been underway for years. Coverage and comments are expected from lots of voices and many sources. The review process hasn?t begun yet.

Ummm...point in fact, Ned. To date, you have posted 186 times on this forum. To my knowledge you have posted exclusively on the Columbus Center thread. So contrary to your claim, it is demonstrably apparent that your work IS RESTRICTED to Columbus Center. Again, if your public spirited crusade to save the citizens of Boston is sincere it stands to reason that you would raise the issue of UFP pollution in every available public forum; especially when the Kenmore project is so inextricably linked to Columbus Center. If you want me to dig back through the posts to find where you pontificate on the need to save everyone in the I90 and 93 corrdiors I will. The bottom line is that your protests smack of self interest when the same "problem" goes unchallenged just two miles down the road. As for your claim that 'the review process hasn't begun yet'...that's simply nonsense. There have been several public meetings and the project is being debated on the pages of Boston's newspapers. Again, if your interest were sincere the time for advocacy would be now.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Kenmore Square

. . . you have posted exclusively on the Columbus Center thread. So . . . your work IS RESTRICTED to Columbus Center

You assume that I?m not active in other venues outside this Forum, and that I?m not active on other issues outside Columbus Center. _ Both assumptions are incorrect.

I have long worked on a number of issues, including Columbus Center. _ I concentrate my efforts in the places that really count and that produce the best results. _ Very low priority are bulletin boards like this, where most messages are from anonymous members, who skipped the hundreds of public meetings, didn?t read the 1,331-page proposal, shunned the 3,400-page lease, and ignored most of the 15,000 pages of public records.

. . . it stands to reason that you would raise the issue of UFP pollution in every available public forum; especially when the Kenmore project is so inextricably linked to Columbus Center. . . your protests smack of self interest when the same "problem" goes unchallenged just two miles down the road.

Your assumption that the problem has ?gone unchallenged? is incorrect. _ I raised the UFP issue in venues that are far more effective than this one. _ I challenged the problem along the entire I-90 and I-93 corridors. _ I am continuing those efforts, and others. _ And I am not the only person doing this.

. . . As for your claim that 'the review process hasn't begun yet'...that's simply nonsense. There have been several public meetings and the project is being debated on the pages of Boston's newspapers. Again, if your interest were sincere the time for advocacy would be now.

The meetings and newspaper articles over the past few years were all about proposals that got revised, replaced, and/or withdrawn. _ One Kenmore?s first full proposal was filed only last week. _ No public meetings have been held yet. _ Yes, my interests are sincere. _ Yes, the time for advocacy is now. _ Be patient. _ And observe.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

RE: Money & Time

. . . The building was economically unfeasible to build. . .

No. _ None of the 6 buildings were ever unfeasible. _ If you?re still having trouble understanding that, then read the developers? own construction cost studies.

. . . screw your hypothetical profits that the developers could make. . .

I did not hypothesize the profits. _ The profits I?ve quoted were all the developers? own figures, supplied by them ? under pains and penalties of perjury. _If you?re still having trouble understanding that, then read the developers? own subsidy applications.

. . .With the inflation in the USD, construction cost would rise.

Like many politicians, many forum members, and even some journalists, you?ve fallen for the biggest fallacy of all: _ that costs constantly rose, but prices never rose.

Comparing the developers? own cost studies to real estate sale prices shows that the tunnels and buildings themselves have always been economically feasible, because ? as the developers explained on 10 September 2004 in the Boston Herald ? construction costs and sale prices rise and fall together. _ They remain aligned closely enough so that the two industries (construction and sales) keep each other in business.

. . .if the NIMBYs such as yourself, had not delay this project for 10 years by asking for this and that, that there would be enough money to build it

Blaming money and time problems on concerned citizens is another favorite fallacy of the BEEARNs (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what). _ But here?s the proof that all money and time problems were self-inflicted by the developers.

MONEY ? The bankers wrote 19 pages of reasons why they didn?t risk their money on this, but never suggested that deleting community amenities could help approve loans for a project that did not qualify to begin with.

TIME ? The review process took only 3 years (2001-2003), but the developers wasted another 10 years planning to beg agencies for tax dollars (1996 - 2000 and 2004 - 2008). _ Furthermore, the Turnpike?s latest lease draft allows construction to start in 2010, but not finish until 2025. _ That 1996-to-2025 time line is entirely the developers? own scheme. _ For this 29-year stretch, blame only the development team, including profit-sharing business partner MTA, which for 13 years has granted every extension request.

. . . You could have so much amenities, a gym, a grocery store. . .

The South End, Back Bay, and Bay Village already have many gyms and convenience stores, so adding more trinkets like that was never a compelling reason for a proposal with so many truly serious problems.

. . . nah, you enjoy your sandbox.

Nobody has advocated for keeping the turnpike as it is. _ But citizens are right to demand: _ competitive bids, from qualified teams, for Master-Plan-compliant designs, with full financial disclosure proving that the proposals are truly subsidy-free. _ None of that occurred, so the public?s thumbs-down response remains justified.

Anger Management ? Your fury over feasibility, profits, costs, and calendar may feel righteous to you, but it is wholly mis-directed. _ These things are all the responsibility of ? and controlled by ? development teams, not communities._ Your disappointment over the proposal?s failure is best directed mainly at the would-be profiteers: _ CalPERS, CUIP, MURC, CWCC, and MTA.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

"Very low priority are bulletin boards like this one"...Oh Ned, you old ham. Me thinks thou doth protest too much...your anthology of posts might indicate that this anonymous bulletin board is more than just 'very low priority'...in any event, I breathlessly await your heroic intervention in Kenmore Square.

I think it's time for a UFP-man superhero...batman is passe. Maybe a green lantern inspired hero who dons carbon filters at night to fight the ultra fine particulate villains.

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned,

By the way...can you point out evidence of the claim you make below? Specifically I would be interested in hearing about those instances where you have raised the UFP issue that are not related to Columbus Center. And how about your UFP compatriots? Anybody else holding that banner who isn't also a NIMBY opponent of Columbus Center?

"I raised the UFP issue in venues that are far more effective than this one. I challenged the problem along the entire I-90 and I-93 corridors. I am continuing those efforts, and others. And I am not the only person doing this."

 

[underground]

Re: Columbus Center

Like many politicians, many forum members, and even some journalists, you?ve fallen for the biggest fallacy of all: _ that costs constantly rose, but prices never rose.

Prices never rose? Seems kinda inconcievable. Actually, I take that back; it is inconcievable!

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Re: UFP remediation example



Yes, the technology exists to design and build vents that remove UFPs from the tunnel air before it?s expelled into offices and homes above and nearby. No, it has not been used this way yet. But don?t misinterpret the fact that because this application has not yet been built elsewhere the technology doesn't exist for building it here. If everyone behaved that way, then mankind would never have built anything new at all. The people working on this (not me) will make the announcement.

Ned, I am not arguing that technology does not exist to scrub UFPs from being vented into the atmosphere. I am arguing that to scale up this technology to scrub the volume of air that you remove every minute from the Columbus Center tunnel would require an enormous building -- a few pages back I said the building would be bigger than Tommy's Tower -- and would be a very costly facility to operate. Not only would this scrubber remove UFPs, but particulates and fine particulates as well.

I looked up an EPA fact sheet on Venturi scrubbers, which remove particulates and fine particulates, but not UFPs. Venturi scrubbers can scrub up to 100,000 cubic meters of air a minute. (Somewhere in the ancient history of this thread is a value for the volume of air you would have to scrub every minute from the tunnel; its very large.) The EPA fact sheet states annual O&M costs for a Venturi scrubber can be as much as $254,000 per cubic meter per second scrubbed from a capacity standpoint. (If you had a Venturi scrubber that scrubbed 1000 cubic meters of air a second, the annual operating cost could be $250,400,000. A 1000 cubic meters is roughly equivalent a room 30' by 10' by 10')

When you extrapolate up to account for the amount of air that would need to be scrubbed for the Columbus Center tunnel, the annual operating cost for the scrubbers could be greater than the capital cost of the project.

 

[ablarc]

Re: Columbus Center

^ One cubic meter = 35.3146667 cubic feet. You're off by more than ten times in your room size.

Fishy science all around or just here?

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

^ One cubic meter = 35.3146667 cubic feet. You're off by more than ten times in your room size.

Fishy science all around or just here?

Yep, I erred badly. As you said, I was off by a factor of 10, so a very long room: 350' by 10' by 10'. So the annual O&M costs would be much less on a volume basis, although for a tunnel the size of that under Columbus Center, still potentially in the many tens of millions of dollars.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

No. None of the 6 buildings were ever unfeasible. If you?re still having trouble understanding that, then read the developers? own construction cost studies.

Wrong, if that was true, then the developers would not require or ask for subsidies to build the skyscraper. The fact is due to rising cost and a downturn in the market, the developers may not see profit for a long time, maybe in the long-term they will but not soon enough. If you still don't understand that, learn about inflation and rising gas prices.

I did not hypothesize the profits. _ The profits I?ve quoted were all the developers? own figures, supplied by them ? under pains and penalties of perjury. _If you?re still having trouble understanding that, then read the developers? own subsidy applications.

The profits are still hypothesized regardless. Profits is never a set number. It's an estimate and an estimation can be close to the real result or very far from it. If you are having understand it, read about supply and demand and how rising cost and a weaken economy affects it.

Like many politicians, many forum members, and even some journalists, you?ve fallen for the biggest fallacy of all: _ that costs constantly rose, but prices never rose.

Comparing the developers? own cost studies to real estate sale prices shows that the tunnels and buildings themselves have always been economically feasible, because ? as the developers explained on 10 September 2004 in the Boston Herald ? construction costs and sale prices rise and fall together. _ They remain aligned closely enough so that the two industries (construction and sales) keep each other in business.

Again, you ignore the basic rules of economics. Inflation is rising at a faster rate than growth. In other words, the value of the dollar has been decreasing over the past years. Money that the developers had, is worth less and thus requires more dollars, something they will not receive until the project is built and are filled. Let me give you an example:

John has $12 to buy a game one day. He decides not to buy it until the next day. The next day, the dollar weakens and the price of the game rises up to $18. John is unable to buy that game since his dollars are worth less and cannot afford it until he receives an income. Put the same format to CC.

You also seem to have trouble understanding the effects of rising sales price. When cost to live in the building rises, the incentive for the consumer to buy a housing unit decrease. In other words, as the cost of a unit rises, the number of possible tenants decrease due to a lower quantity demanded. This happens to coincide with a housing market that has been in trouble since the housing bubble popped which shook consumer confidence. The outcome is lower demand.

Blaming money and time problems on concerned citizens is another favorite fallacy of the BEEARNs (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what). _ But here?s the proof that all money and time problems were self-inflicted by the developers.

MONEY ? The bankers wrote 19 pages of reasons why they didn?t risk their money on this, but never suggested that deleting community amenities could help approve loans for a project that did not qualify to begin with.

TIME ? The review process took only 3 years (2001-2003), but the developers wasted another 10 years planning to beg agencies for tax dollars (1996 - 2000 and 2004 - 2008). _ Furthermore, the Turnpike?s latest lease draft allows construction to start in 2010, but not finish until 2025. _ That 1996-to-2025 time line is entirely the developers? own scheme. _ For this 29-year stretch, blame only the development team, including profit-sharing business partner MTA, which for 13 years has granted every extension request.

And blaming all the problems on the developer is another favorite fallacy of NIMBYs (Not in my backyard). The developers are not required to build an advance scrubbing filter for its vent and using that as an argument is moot.

The South End, Back Bay, and Bay Village already have many gyms and convenience stores, so adding more trinkets like that was never a compelling reason for a proposal with so many truly serious problems.

I never said it was a compelling reason to build this proposal but hey I guess you enjoy a sandbox more than this so have fun with it.

Anger Management ? Your fury over feasibility, profits, costs, and calendar may feel righteous to you, but it is wholly mis-directed. _ These things are all the responsibility of ? and controlled by ? development teams, not communities._ Your disappointment over the proposal?s failure is best directed mainly at the would-be profiteers: _ CalPERS, CUIP, MURC, CWCC, and MTA.

Save your self-righteous attitude for someone who actually cares. Instead of talking about the ire you draw from me and other forumers, you might actually want to tweak your elitist, spoiled attitude first. Many of your post are written in a way that shows that you look down on us. Listen, you do not speak for all people, just those who attend your little club. Your posts are obviously biased, only looking for the negative points but never the positive ones . You are no better than any of the other NIMBYs who selfishly cares about himself more than anyone else. I highly question your faith in protecting your fellow residents from UFP near CC when it is more likely, you are protecting yourself. If you didn't live near there, you wouldn't give a thought about those residents living there.

 

[Tim Jackson]

Re: Columbus Center

I have sat back and observed this forum (and sparring match between Ned and the other forum members) for some time now, and I now have finally felt like I know enough to hold my own in a conversation (I am still far behind the other more experienced members to be sure, but I intend to learn).

A year ago, I was one of the people who admired height and good appearance and not much else. One year ago I would have said, without a second thought, that the Columbus Center should be built as is immediately. Today, my view has changed a little.

The forum members who unequivocally support this proposal will be happy to know that I am still in favor of the proposal, but I do have some issues with developers and proposal, mainly the requirement of public subsidy (see below). It seems like there are several main points being fiercely debated here, so I will toss my views in as well.

On the topic of UFPs, I do believe that they are harmful, but I am also not in the camp that this should be the reason that the Columbus Center collapses. The UFPs are already there. If people really want to make a serious effort to curb UFPs, you need to attack it at the source - the diesel trains and trucks that travel along that corridor. I am not educated enough on ways to accomplish that, so I will not try and offer some answer to the problem, but the developers shouldn't have their project sunk because of this.

As far as the master plan is concerned, I do agree that some sort of plan and set of guidelines is needed to make sure the tunneling of the Pike doesn't turn into an uncoordinated mess, but to not allow any kind of wiggle room is ridiculous in my opinion. I will use the debate regarding the two acre park as an example. To require CalPERS to develop another major open space in the area would provide almost TOO much open green space. The obvious ones are the Common and Public Garden, but Commonwealth Mall is also nearby. Too many large public open spaces aren't good in the heart of a city.

Concerning the lack of a competitive bid, this issue has me a little on edge. For the most part, I feel like the Columbus Center proposal is solid, but I cannot help but think that, if it had been put out for a proper bidding amongst developers, could we have A) ended up with an even better proposal, and B) would a more competent developer stepped up and would have this then been built by now?

The big thing with me is demand for public subsidies, especially after they promised it would be subsidy free. Granted, I do not pay taxes yet (I am a freshman in college), but I look at my dad and if I was in his position, I wouldn't want his money going to this project. Over the next eight years, he will need to fork over about $400,000 for both my sister and I to go to college. This makes finances a bit tight. I know my dad and I would both like to see his money go towards something other than private developments. If they need to shrink and rework the project to lift the need for public subsidy, but I know that I wouldn't want my money going towards it (if I was actually paying taxes).

In conclusion, I want to see this project go through, I want to see this proposal get built (as is), and I want to see that 35 story tower go up just like the Clarendon next door. My only hesitation is the public subsidy issue, as I could see that money going towards far more beneficial initiatives.

 

[palindrome]

Re: Columbus Center

Excellent first post. Welcome to the forums!

I completely agree about attacking UFP's at their source. Ned, why has there not been any type of lawsuit against MBTA, MTA, CSX? (or has there?)

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

I am shocked Ned didn't already post his latest contribution to the South End News, so here goes. I wonder if i am the only person who has tired of reading him as a source on this story.

The truth is in the public records
by Ned Flaherty
MySouthEnd.com Contributor
Thursday Aug 21, 2008

Boston?s biggest urban planning failure, the Columbus Center, is a complex pile of pretty watercolors, arcane legal maneuvers, clerical errors, and public relations ploys. Now in its 13th year of being re-proposed, many of the myths have been uncovered, while others still haven?t come to light.

Among the most misled are people on the real estate industry gravy train, where every proposal is another profit opportunity. The brokers, bankers, attorneys, architects, builders, media spinners, lobbyists, and hobbyists should check the public records before making assumptions about a story that began before many of them were even working here.

Nine of the most popular myths were repeated in John Keith?s column, "Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers" (August 14).

So here - straight from the public records - are the facts.

1. No one should assume that the proposal failed because three state representatives opposed subsidizing it. Most of our 200 state legislators and most of their constituents have long opposed wasting public dollars on a proposal that got approved by dishonestly posing as subsidy-free. But the proposal wasn?t killed by legislators or constituents. The developers killed it, by promising Massachusetts taxpayers that there would be no subsidies, then promising California investors that Massachusetts would subsidize both costs and profits, and then getting caught.

2. No one should believe that neighbors somehow made the buildings "economically unfeasible." The developers? own construction cost analyses and real estate sale prices show that the tunnels and buildings themselves have always been economically feasible, because construction costs and sale prices rise and fall together, as the developers explained on September 10, 2004 in the Boston Herald. But while the buildings themselves remained feasible, the overall project became increasingly unfeasible as the developers deceived investors and told them that:

? taxpayers would subsidize both costs and profits;
? condominium owners would repay the 50-year state construction loans;
? condominium owners would pay the Turnpike 99 years of rent for air space; and
? condominium owners would inspect, maintain, repair, upgrade, replace, and insure the publicly used tunnels over seven acres of the 14-lane interstate transportation corridor forever.

3. No one should fall for the fable that investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew funding for the project - they never promised any in the first place. On May 10, 2006, the bank offered to consider an application for up to $437,600,000, but only if the developers met all commercial lending criteria by September 8, 2006. The developers didn?t qualify, the loan wasn?t applied for, and the bank?s offer expired. It was never renewed, revised, or replaced. But the bank didn?t back out of the loan; instead, the developers never qualified enough to even apply for it.

Even though no loans were ever issued, for years the developers wrote subsidy applications - under penalties and pains of perjury - claiming that they already had 100 percent of the financing.

4. No neighbors ever "extorted" public parks from the developer. The Turnpike Master Plan was enacted long before the public process started, and requires two acres of contiguous public parkland. The promises to build public parks were just the developers? weak efforts to partly comply with that plan.

Moreover, the public didn?t extort parks from the developer, but the developer did steal parks from the public. On December 14, 2006, the developers quietly converted the promised public parks into privately owned gardens over which the public has no control and no recourse.

5. CalPERS?s threatened pull-out didn?t occur in 2007. That threat came in one year earlier. It was shortly after signing the Turnpike?s lease in May 2006 that California - meaning California Public Employees Retirement System, now the principal in the project - threatened to cancel if Massachusetts didn?t arrange a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies.

6. The developers never raised "at least $250 million." No subsidy agency ever disbursed any funds. No bank ever issued any construction loans. By early 2008, California?s lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority had been in default for nearly two years, so exasperated Turnpike officials insisted on $294,461,484 in completion guarantees. But California declined.

In early April, California?s Boston-based managers flew to the west coast and begged, but came back empty-handed. In early July, the project?s owners at CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC imposed a news blackout on all journalists. Any venture that had actually raised $250 million wouldn?t behave this way.

7. Brokers eager to sell more luxury condominiums blame the proposal?s failure on "approval delays." That?s also untrue. The review process took only three years (from 2001 to 2003), but the developers wasted 10 years (1996 to 2000 and 2004 to 2008) planning to beg agencies for tax dollars. The Turnpike?s latest draft of the lease allows construction to start in 2010, but not finish until 2025.

8. Real estate people call community participation "constant meddling" because the profiteers see communities as trampling on their private revenue. But concerned citizens have the right to question any proposal, especially one from developers who paid a governor $10,000 to prohibit competitors, who refused public audits, and who violated the Turnpike Master Plan.

9. No one should bemoan the community benefits as "lost." No existing benefits have been lost, and potential future benefits have only been postponed. Qualified developers will eventually write competitive proposals that offer jobs, homes, parks, stores, affordability, and tax revenue. What has been lost is 13 years of time wasted listening to the drumbeat of re-proposals from California?s Columbus Center.


Whenever a project is proposed, real estate people threaten the public with "losing benefits" if approval isn?t rapid. But truly good proposals can succeed no matter when they?re approved, and proposals that only work in frothy economies are fundamentally unfeasible, and should be disapproved. Rushing a review is never necessary, and only invites a bad ending.

And whenever a project fails, the real estate industry finds apologists to blame everyone else: the taxpayers who wouldn?t pay for it, the bankers who wouldn?t finance it, and - most often - the review process that killed the precious golden goose. But public reviews are not mere formalities to be endured; they are a series of tests put in place not just to approve worthy proposals, but also to halt unworthy ones. Honest, feasible proposals survive that process.

Massachusetts taxpayers care how their money gets spent and they decided not to fund California?s costs and profits. Bankers shun losses, and none have risked any money on this proposal. Even the owners themselves stopped funding it.

The fact that community scrutiny of public records helped expose Columbus Center?s flaws proves that our public processes are - thankfully - working as designed.

Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder and former Ellis South End Neighborhood Association vice president Ned Flaherty supports air rights development citywide, and opposes Master Plan violations such as those that led to the failure of California?s Columbus Center.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

I don't even know how to respond to that.

My column was reviewed around 20 times by the editor at the South End News. If there are any holes in my arguments, they were missed by both me and by her.

Saying that brokers only approve of this project because it will mean more money in their pockets is laughable. In fact, one posted here at the forum has suggested that the opposite is true - that brokers should be against new buildings, since it increases supply and lowers prices, meaning less money in their pockets.

Ned constantly sees enemies where there are none. In one post here, he says that everyone but he has missed important things about this project. Public officials, residents, the press, the pope ... the list goes on. Only he, he says, has read the 30,000 pages (w/e) of documents, only he knows what's REALLY going on.

I am a resident of the South End. I support the project. It's that simple.

** Oh, irony of ironies - several of the 9 mistakes Ned points out cannot be mistakes ... for sources, I used data provided by him, here on the forum! More on this, later.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Here is a bit more from the South End News:

MySouthEnd.com

Keith gets it wrong on Columbus Center
To the editor:

I strongly disagree with many of the statements made by John Keith in his editorial. The project known as Columbus Center went sour from its very inception. Rather than go out to bid, Winn/Cassin was granted the sole right to build on these parcels without any other input from other possible developers.

During the many CAC meetings, the neighborhood(s) you recently accused of killing this project requested financial information. It was never revealed to the public. Perhaps had this information been made available, much of the mess that the project is in could have been avoided.

You seem to point fingers at seemingly greedy neighbors but I have no doubt that it is the developers who are greedy.

I don?t know where you reside, but if you were an abutter to this proposed monstrosity you would be singing a different tune.

J. Komarow


CORRECTION
In John Keith?s opinion piece last week, "Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand father," he indicated that MassHousing withdrew a $20 million loan from the Columbus Center project. According to MassHousing, the agency did not withdraw the loan, but rather did not choose to close on it. We regret the mischaracterization.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Recipe for news article:

Add 1 cup of complete lack of knowledge of real estate finance
Add 2 tablespoons of mis-association between a Pension fund and a state government
Apply liberal amount of conjecture
Mix briskly with semantics
Carefully season with UFP's (warning: overuse has been speculted to possibly lead to premature death in a small portion of old people)
Bake for years
Serve with a commanding sense of (mislead) authority

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

So I noticed Neds tagline at the end of his piece was different from a previous one I had all but memorized. I thought it would be a great use of my time to see how the media decide characterize his role in the story of Columbus Center. A smattering of results are below.

Ned Flaherty, former neighborhood association vice president and Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder, has studied Turnpike air rights since moving to the South End 18 years ago. He strongly supports air rights development, but opposes the public process failures that resulted in the Columbus Center disaster. -SEN

Urban planning activist Ned Flaherty has been researching air rights development since 1993, and tracking the proposed Columbus Center since 1996. -SEN

Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder and former Ellis South End Neighborhood Association vice president Ned Flaherty supports air rights development citywide, and opposes Master Plan violations such as those that led to the failure of California?s Columbus Center. -SEN

...Flaherty, an urban planner and cofounder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods, who has been closely watching the project for many years. -Globe

said Ned Flaherty, a neighborhood activist and Columbus Center opponent -Herald

Kudos to SEN's Scott Kearnan who got it right in ?Columbus Center countdown? (May 29, 2008)
?Clarendon Street resident and longtime critic of the project Ned Flaherty??

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

RE: U.F.P.s

^^please show an example of this technology, and a website of a company currently making them.

The application of this technology to this problem is not mass manufactured, so you can?t just ?see a website of a company making them?. _ Existing tunnels don?t use the latest technology in the ways that it would be applied here, so an example does not exist yet.

. . . I would be interested in hearing about those instances where you have raised the UFP issue that are not related to Columbus Center. And how about your UFP compatriots?. . .

There?s no such thing as raising the UFP issue ?not related to Columbus Center? because the issue exists all along both urban interstate corridors, and every time the issue gets raised, government agencies focus most heavily on the sites then under review (currently parcels CANA-4, CANA-2, parcels 12-13-14-15, parcel 7, parcels 16-17-18-19).

No need to list Boston?s journalists here; they?re well enough known.

On this issue, the agencies that heard from me during 2006-2007-2008, and from others for quite a few years before that, include: Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Department of Public Health, Boston Environment Department, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. _ Other city, state, and federal agencies have also heard from other individuals and organizations, who periodically publish both their efforts and their results.

Ned, I am not arguing that technology does not exist to scrub UFPs . . . I am arguing that to scale up this technology . . . would require an enormous building . . . and would be a very costly facility to operate. Not only would this scrubber remove UFPs, but particulates and fine particulates as well.

Stellarfun, I am not arguing that there?s no cost, or that there?s any specific cost. _ But the ten-fold increase for many existing residents would be intolerable, inexcusable, and unnecessary. _ Whenever a proposal would do harm to people in existing homes and offices, the only responsible options are: _ build differently, or build elsewhere, or don?t build. _ Building differently ? remediating the problem ? seems the best choice.

On the topic of UFPs, I do believe that they are harmful . . . The UFPs are already there. . .

Thanks, Tim, for being one of the few identified forum members (most are anonymous).

UFPs aren?t just ?already there?. _ The proposal is to capture all the existing pollution, concentrate it, and vent it at precise locations, which for many of the tens of thousands of workers and residents along both corridors, produces a ten-fold increase over what they suffer now. _ For the few people several blocks from any vent at all, exposure should decrease. But for anyone within a few blocks of a vent, the public health risks increase.

As far as the master plan is concerned . . . some sort of plan and set of guidelines is needed to make sure the tunneling of the Pike doesn't turn into an uncoordinated mess, but to not allow any kind of wiggle room is ridiculous. . .

The Turnpike Master Plan adopted in 2000 generously includes alternatives for every parcel. _ Whenever Parcel 16 exceeds 15 stories, a 2-acre public park is required on Parcel 18. _ Whenever Parcel 18 has no park, Parcel 16 is limited to 15 stories. _ There are plenty of options.

RE: Economics

Prices never rose? . . . it is inconcievable!

Yes, it is inconceivable that prices never rose. _ But that?s exactly the developers? ploy. _ They argue that every public dollar they seek became necessary because costs rose (but prices did not). Their subsidy requests argue that only costs rose, but their loan applications admit that sale prices rose, too. Pull and read the 15 subsidy requests, then pull the loan applications, and notice that sales of $1,146,096,618 less costs of $800,000,000 = $346,096,618 ? a healthy profit that needs no subsidy at all.

. . . if that was true, then the developers would not require or ask for subsidies to build the skyscraper.

These developers ask for subsidies for 3 reasons: _ (1) because they can; (2) because people fall for the ?costs went up? excuse and forget that sales went up, too; and (3) because every subsidy dollar lowers their cost and boosts their profit ? at public expense.