Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

It seems like one of the main and major reason why CC was unable to get off the ground was the inability to get loans caused by a loss of confidence from banks due to a downturn in the market. . . I guess the condition of the economy did play a major role, contrary to what Ned said.

No, the current economy played no major role.

That's because during good times and bad, Columbus Center?s failures (1996-2008) were caused by ? among many other things ? the fact that no commercial bank ever loaned even one dollar of the $840 million now needed to finish construction.

So, yes, the project is un-finance-able, and yes, it has always been un-finance-able. _ The recent bank tightening merely reinforced that fact. _ Even if the 2008 tightening had not happened, the un-finance-ability demonstrated from 1996-2007 remains. _ So, no, the current economy did not put the project where it is today, because in all economic climates, it has always remained un-finance-able.

As soon as CalPERS-CUIP-MacFarlane finally admitted to themselves that their project can not be financed, they cut off current funding and refused additional funding last winter.

They did the same thing to another of their projects, LandSource, forcing it to file for bankruptcy on 8 June. _ Although that move cost its owners $1 billion, they understand the principle of not throwing good money after bad.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . If Columbus Center is profitable, it will be built. If Columbus Center is not profitable, it will not be built. All the other little story lines fall below that one.

That?s not so. _ Many large, profitable projects never get built. _ The best example is the 1.4-million-s.f., 4.7-acre, Boylston Square air rights proposal, proposed in 1998, and dead for nearly a decade. _ It was always profitable, but it was never built, because plenty of other factors weighed in.

CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC?s latest public subsidy applications show a completed value of $1,146,096,618, less $800,000,000 cost, for a profit of $346,096,618 (and that?s with no public subsidies at all), so raw profit is not the problem. _ The underlying problem has always been that no commercial banker ever loaned any of the $840 million needed to finish. _ That has not changed.

Profit is always the primary motivator of developers, and also of the politicians that they own. _ But ultimately, it is never the only consideration.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . I was struck by how dated this project now looks. . .

The outdated feeling arises from the fact that something first proposed 13 years ago now is not slated to be finished construction for 17 more years, per the latest draft of the amended lease.

. . . What would make the project good in 2006 but bad in 2009?

The spread isn?t 2006-to-2009; it?s 1996-to-2025. _ And apparently discontented with that time line, the developers already are begging for an even longer phase-in. _ If that 1996-to-2025 spread stretches any further ? voil?! ? on opening day it?ll already be nostalgic.

. . . if this design . . . was unveiled today, we would all probably have the same reactions as when we did back when this proposal was originally unveiled. . .

No, reactions would not be the same, because now the truth is out. _ The proposals approved from 1996 to 2004 were all subsidy-free, but in every re-proposal from 2005 onward, the developers wanted costs and profits subsidized by taxpayers. _ Profiteers love corporate welfare in which they?re the beneficiaries, but no one else has any tolerance for it.

 

[Tim Jackson]

Re: Columbus Center

When I was saying we would have the same reactions, I was discussing from strictly a design standpoint, considering that was what Padre Mike was talking about. I wasn't going into whether or not the master plan was broken or not, whether there was public subsidy or not, etc.

Padre Mike looked at the design and thought that it looked stale. I agree - the current design of the project has been on the table for awhile and it feels old and stale, mainly because nothing significant has happened regarding the project (and it doesn't look like that will change anytime soon). If the developers came out with this new design today, would we all think that it was stale? No, because it would be a fresh new one.

That's all I was getting at. The design of the project is still very good (in my opinion), its just that the lack of any real progress makes it seem stale and outdated.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: Columbus Center

^^ Really? How so?

Cheaper HVAC units and such? What else can an engineer skimp on that won't compromise the structural integrity of the building?

And no, that's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious.

It is amazing what will be asked from time to time to save money on a project. What is funny sometimes is when a project is 20 million over budget, and the first thing they do is ask the MEP engineers how to save when the entire MEP budget is less than 20 mil. What I do understand, from an architectural standpoint and from the owner/developer, is that they own a product based on the original design. Therefore, as much of the architectural pretty stuff must be kept at almost any cost.

The problem is just what you questioned. First, cheaper HVAC, but not so much in unit but in entire design. Going from central chilled water & boiler water, to heat pump, fan box, or roof top unit systems. Electrical going from copper feeders to aluminum, or directly burying conduit in lieu of encasing it. Central domestic hot water versus cheaper less reliable electric heaters throughout. The list goes on and on. Typically the savings is found in materials and in eliminating redundancy. All aimed at short term savings at the expense of long term performance/reliability.

It's a business, and we all know it, but the engineering community feels similiarly to the architectural in that, we feel like we put the best design on paper and people with suits and wallets try to cut it down. Your design is your baby, and you are proud of it, and want to protect it. We also understand almost all projects go through a VE phase, so we will build in certain things that we can live without, while still maintaining the integrity of the design.

I will give you one of my favorite VE items, which has come up on 2 of my more high end and visible projects. Both were brand new "state of the art" sports facilities. One a professional hockey arena, and the other a Div. I college football stadium. On both of these projects it was asked (and fairly well pushed for) whether we could utilize trough style urinals in all the public mens rooms. We saw this as 50+ year old design, and potentially a disgrace to the project. Luckily neither ended up with this, as in one case the code wouldn't allow it, and in the other cooler (smarter) heads prevailed. But, we defended our design in each case, and presented the pros and cons.

The biggest area to VE (short of finish) however is the HVAC systems.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Don't believe the "consulting" hype - Related/Beal are in it to win it.

Ned - you are sadly going to have to drop all your propaganda against "California" and Winn once they exit stage left.

You better start researching the Related Companies and Beal - you're going to have brand new, fresh mud to hurl about! Isn't that exciting? The world is dying to hear what awful things these companies are up to!!! Start slinging! You should begin preparing your next South End News diatribe.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

Don't believe the "consulting" hype - Related/Beal are in it to win it.

Most failed projects go through a scavenging phase, during which vultures swarm to feed off the rotting corpse, while the owners try to recover a little by salvaging as scrap whatever they have left at pennies-on-the-dollar rates: _ property, permits, designs, property, etc.

And this failure is no different.

But the Beals of Boston and the Beals of New York have bought none of this project. _ They have invested nothing into it. _ The current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) merely hired the Beals on a single-fee-for-single-service consulting basis.

The purpose is for California to determine: _ (1) how honest and competent Winn?s prospectus was back in 2005; (2) what actually happened 2006-2008; and (3) what the new prognosis is 2010-2025. _ The current owners can?t sue the former owners without this data.

Ned - you are sadly going to have to drop all your propaganda against "California" and Winn once they exit stage left.

There are no new owners, only former owners (Winn) and current owners (California). _ The Beals haven?t bought the project, or offered to buy it, and California hasn?t sold the project, offered to sell it, fired Winn, or even let them just walk away. _ On the contrary, California is holding Winn?s feet to the fire that Winn created, and for good reason. _ California owns everything, Winn remains under contract to California, and the Beals are under contract to CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC.

But regardless of what future role they may play, one thing about the Beal/Related team is already historical fact: _ they, just like CalPERS-CUIP-MURC and Winn, also make their living through public subsidies that consume taxpayer dollars paying their private costs and profits. _ When they tell the Globe they?ll ?cut costs,? they mean they?ll cut owners? costs, by shifting those costs to taxpayers more than by truly eliminating them.

The Beals? re-proposal should itemize how much money they want the public to pay into their 100% privately owned project ? and when ? and why.

To be honest, their re-proposal needs to itemize the 13 types of subsidy sought by the former and current owners:

? property discounts;
? property tax breaks;
? tax-free bond loans;
? low-interest construction loans;
? luxury housing grants;
? state income tax breaks;
? utility grants;
? work tax credits;
? equipment write-offs;
? wage tax credits;
? energy grants;
? community development tax credits; and
? economic stimulus grants.

In addition to the above 13 subsidies, the consultants should add the new subsidies that they conclude are needed to ?save? this proposal.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

Well, time will prove either your above post correct, or my post above that correct. For now, I will write nothing more.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

As an aside, if you want to study and learn the PR industry, you don't examine the contents of an article like that (on Beal's "consulting" task), you ask the question "why was this news even released? why is this being written about?" followed of course by "so what's the real story?" - that's where the fun part of public relations comes into play.

Also, Beal/Related aren't known as being consultants to developers, are they? You might say this is very unusual for them. Especially considering their huge competing property next door at the Clarendon. Why would the developer allow CC's books to be opened and examined by their closest, largest competitor? But Beal is just "consulting", right? He'll make his recommendations on how to make CC profitable, take a consulting fee (hey, it might even be thousands of dollars), and then go back to work on his property. Next door.

 

[Tim Jackson]

Re: Columbus Center

Columbus Center developers would open their books to Beal because they know that, whether or not Beal ends up being a part of the team that develops those air rights parcels, he has a fair amount to lose if those parcels remain a gaping chasm.

Lets say Beal doesn't become a primary developer. He would still want to see the Columbus Center built because it would raise the value of The Clarendon. As a potential condo buyer or a party interested in purchasing the building itself (way down the line), would you rather it be next to a highway, or a vibrant new mixed-use development? The latter certainly appeals to many more people, and the value would go up.

Not that I am saying that Beal would be hurting if CC ultimately failed, just pointing out that a successful Columbus Center (or another future project on those air rights) would help out his Clarendon property, regardless of his involvement.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

^ Ned, can you please define "Luxury Housing Grant" for me? I had never heard of it before, so I asked Google, and apparantly neither has anyone else.

Also, what is the difference between a "work tax credit" and a "wage tax credit".

Finally, what specifically at C.C. qualifies as a unique "equipment write-off" that falls outside standard business deductions. Assuming you are self employed, and you are smart, then I assume you depreciate your home computer? Does this qualify you as receiving a public subsidy? There is no right or wrong answer, I just want to know to what extent you are casting the "subsidy" net, as I don't have time to read all 17,653,342,158 pages of public documents.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . Beal/Related aren't known as being consultants to developers, are they? You might say this is very unusual for them.

Yes, they do consult to developers. _ Harvard University needed a secret consultant to expand across the river into Boston, and Beal did that work for them ? confidentially ? until the damage was done and no one could do anything about it. _ Such consulting isn?t unusual, just unpublicized.

. . . Why would the developer allow CC's books to be opened and examined by their closest, largest competitor?

Because ?the developer? isn?t one, single-minded entity, a concept that people here and elsewhere still have trouble grasping. _ ?The developer? now consists of 5 partners with separate agendas.

Partner 1 ? CalPERS?s goal is rapid, safe, high-profit return on its capital since 2005, but it hasn?t gotten any profit, or even any progress.

Partner 2 ? CUIP?s goal is to keep CalPERS? investment off the state books and out of the public eye, but this investment in another government?s publicly subsidized project made that difficult.

Partner 3 ? MURC?s role is to earn a percentage for itself by investing and managing CalPERS? money and obtaining the results promised in Winn?s prospectus, but, like CalPERS, it also has seen no profit or progress.

Partner 4 ? Winn?s role is to make the day-to-day decisions to keep the promises Winn made to the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC organization in 2005, so that Winn can (a) collect its sub-contractor fee at the end of the project and (b) not get sued by the controlling partners. _ But Winn has made no progress since 2005 (e.g., the 7 acres of railway/roadway tunnels required to finish by November 2008 never even started).

Partner 5 ? Beal/Related?s role is to finish a single-fee-for-single-service consulting contract evaluating the project?s financial history. _ They collect the same handsome fee, regardless of whether the prognosis is good, poor, or middling.

Partners 1, 2, and 3 (the ones in total control) engaged partner 5 (the consultant) to evaluate partner 4 (just a sub-contractor to Partners 1, 2, and 3).

If Partner 5 can show the project as worthless today, then get Partners 1, 2, and 3 to write it off as a loss, then buy it from them for pennies on the dollar, and then make a killing for themselves, they will do just that. _ But because the consultants have a vested interest in devaluing the project, their clients should view any such recommendations with extreme skepticism.

As I explained here on 8 July, the Beal/Related team are not the first consultants hired by CalPERS-CUIP-MURC in recent months to find out what went wrong. _ Last winter, CalPERS hired global financial services firm Morgan Stanley of New York to perform a similar exercise.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . I don't have time to read all 17,653,342,158 pages of public documents . . .

Anyone who hasn?t read all the public records will never understand what this unique proposal really is. _ If you want to understand, the public records are the place to start. _ But they total 15 thousand pages, not 17 million. _ Over 99% of the pages you assumed you?d have to read don?t even exist, so if you keep making calculation errors of that magnitude, it?s doubtful you?ll ever grasp the rest of it.

what is the difference between a "work tax credit" and a "wage tax credit"? . . . what specifically at C.C. qualifies as a unique "equipment write-off" that falls outside standard business deductions?

Atlrvr, you wrote here on 15 April that you?re an expert in real estate finance, ?employed by an equity investor that takes limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, with a controlling ownership stake in every deal.? _ But now you admit ignorance of the federal work tax credits, wage tax credits, and equipment purchase deductions that are often claimed by developers in federally defined poverty districts. _ Someone in the role you claim would know better.

Since you don?t have the time to read the public records, you certainly don?t have the time to listen to me recite them. _ So here?s a summary answer: _ these federal tax credits and tax deductions became available after the developers paid ?campaign donations? to state Senator Wilkerson for re-drawing Boston?s HUD-sponsored poverty boundary to include the 7-acre site of Columbus Center (marketed to investors and bankers as ?the city?s answer to Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue?).

Details are found in the federal laws and regulations governing the HUD Empowerment Zone program, in Columbus Center?s request to re-draw the poverty boundary, and many related documents. _ Be sure to ask Senator Wilkerson for a copy of the Columbus Center Empowerment Zone jobs contract that she negotiated during 2005-2006-2007 while receiving ?campaign donations? from the developers. _ Note: since it was signed one year ago, she has refused to show it to media, government, elected officials, or the public.

How does a Rodeo-Drive-class luxury skyscraper complex also claim to be the very essence of poverty? _ Taxpayers and government agencies asked the same question.

Ned, can you please define "Luxury Housing Grant" for me? I had never heard of it before, so I asked Google, and apparantly neither has anyone else.

You won?t get an answer by ?asking Google? because the concept of a ?luxury housing grant? is new, and unique to the perverse logic of the Columbus Center proposal. _ For the many who are still unfamiliar with the 15,000 pages of that proposal ? as you say you are ? here?s the answer.

No one?s ever heard of a ?luxury housing grant? because there?s no such thing; government agencies don?t knowingly give away taxpayer dollars to pay for building luxury housing.

But California applied for a public infrastructure grant that, if disbursed, would have been used instead to build private luxury housing. _ California?s application was disapproved twice: _ first in fall 2007, because taxpayer dollars reserved for public infrastructure can?t be used to build private luxury housing; and again in spring 2008, because the project never borrowed the bank loans it claimed to have borrowed. _ Massachusetts told California they can?t reapply until both these obstacles are overcome.

The project remains a ?luxury housing? venture (81% of the square feet are residential), and the developers insist the Governor once promised them the outright gift of a public ?grant? to build it. _ So ?luxury housing grant? remains on the list of subsidies that the developers insist they?re going to grab.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Columbus Center

Ned, Beal's role in acquiring land in Allston on behalf of Harvard was more than just acting as a "consultant". Beal, in effect, acted as a straw for Harvard. Beal acted similarly on behalf of the Boston Public Library, which is how it acquired the land for the addition to the Central Library.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Columbus Center

- The developers hired Morgan Stanley to do a top-down consulting project.

- Months later they have hired Beal/Related to do the same. (the must be flush with cash to have so much to throw around on multiple "consulting" projects)

- The New York-based Related Companies have decided to partner with Beal to do a consulting project even though it is downright silly to think that a company the size of the Related Companies would want to share in a little one-fee consulting project in Boston.

- Columbus Center's PR firm felt this was all worthy of a press release and media attention.

Now, use some common sense:

Unless something is revealed during this due diligence period.. oh, sorry, I mean the "consulting period", then Beal/Related are going to take over this project and build Columbus Center. Unlike the traveling Winn Company circus, Beal/Related are a team that can, and will, get this done - they have the portfolio of success, the financial backing, and the track record at the Clarendon.

 

[atlrvr]

Re: Columbus Center

Anyone who hasn?t read all the public records will never understand what this unique proposal really is. _ If you want to understand, the public records are the place to start. _ But they total 15 thousand pages, not 17 million. _ Over 99% of the pages you assumed you?d have to read don?t even exist, so if you keep making calculation errors of that magnitude, it?s doubtful you?ll ever grasp the rest of it.



Atlrvr, you wrote here on 15 April that you?re an expert in real estate finance, ?employed by an equity investor that takes limited partnership positions on dozens of deals a year, with a controlling ownership stake in every deal.? _ But now you admit ignorance of the federal work tax credits, wage tax credits, and equipment purchase deductions that are often claimed by developers in federally defined poverty districts. _ Someone in the role you claim would know better.

Since you don?t have the time to read the public records, you certainly don?t have the time to listen to me recite them. _ So here?s a summary answer: _ these federal tax credits and tax deductions became available after the developers paid ?campaign donations? to state Senator Wilkerson for re-drawing Boston?s HUD-sponsored poverty boundary to include the 7-acre site of Columbus Center (marketed to investors and bankers as ?the city?s answer to Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue?).

Details are found in the federal laws and regulations governing the HUD Empowerment Zone program, in Columbus Center?s request to re-draw the poverty boundary, and many related documents. _ Be sure to ask Senator Wilkerson for a copy of the Columbus Center Empowerment Zone jobs contract that she negotiated during 2005-2006-2007 while receiving ?campaign donations? from the developers. _ Note: since it was signed one year ago, she has refused to show it to media, government, elected officials, or the public.

How does a Rodeo-Drive-class luxury skyscraper complex also claim to be the very essence of poverty? _ Taxpayers and government agencies asked the same question.



You won?t get an answer by ?asking Google? because the concept of a ?luxury housing grant? is new, and unique to the perverse logic of the Columbus Center proposal. _ For the many who are still unfamiliar with the 15,000 pages of that proposal ? as you say you are ? here?s the answer.

No one?s ever heard of a ?luxury housing grant? because there?s no such thing; government agencies don?t knowingly give away taxpayer dollars to pay for building luxury housing.

But California applied for a public infrastructure grant that, if disbursed, would have been used instead to build private luxury housing. _ California?s application was disapproved twice: _ first in fall 2007, because taxpayer dollars reserved for public infrastructure can?t be used to build private luxury housing; and again in spring 2008, because the project never borrowed the bank loans it claimed to have borrowed. _ Massachusetts told California they can?t reapply until both these obstacles are overcome.

The project remains a ?luxury housing? venture (81% of the square feet are residential), and the developers insist the Governor once promised them the outright gift of a public ?grant? to build it. _ So ?luxury housing grant? remains on the list of subsidies that the developers insist they?re going to grab.

Are you saying you can't distinguish between a work tax credit and a wage tax credit, or that you just don't want to share? Saying the answer is in the public records is a pretty easy answer don't you think? Since I asked, and you gave me your generic answer, I tracked down the answer myself, and now understand that neither would be direct subsidies to the developers, rather to the operators of the retail and hotel components.

Also, this ominious sounding business purchase deduction is available to every business in the country. I assume you are upset because now they are available for bonus depreciation?

It sounds as though you have a lot of angst towards IRS tax law. While it certainly is tedious, and often illogical, I'm pretty certain that following tax law isn't criminal. Perhaps a bigger crusade should be towards corporate tax reform

Finally....you just admitted that you made up the "Luxury Housing Grant", and there is no such thing. It's because of your continuous intentional deception on a variety of points, that I find it ironic you question the developer's integrity.

No one in the city other than MAYBE the developer has read as many public records as you on this project, but you wave that fact around like a "get out of jail free" card, anytime someone questions your assertions. You may portray yourself as the local expert on the project, but when you intenionally and repeatedly make misleading statements, one can only assume its for your personal agenda, and not because you are working toward a greater public good.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . between a work tax credit and a wage tax credit . . . neither would be direct subsidies to the developers, rather to the operators of the retail and hotel components.

As always, you haven?t read the public records. _ Every subsidy is either consumed by the developers or else sold to someone else. _ Thus, every subsidy increases the developers? sale prices and reduces their costs. _ Although Congress never intended such abuse, all Columbus Center subsidies ? even the ones designed for future tenants ? benefit the developers directly, because they adjust for them in their sale prices.

. . . this ominous sounding business purchase deduction is available to every business in the country.

Firstly, you?ve confused your subsidies. _ The Columbus Center subsidy is not the ?business purchase deduction? you wrote about. _ The Columbus Center subsidy is an Equipment Purchase Deduction, which is different.

Secondly, it is available only to qualified businesses inside an impoverished neighborhood declared under HUD regulations as a poverty district called an ?Empowerment Zone?. _ You wrote that it is available to ?every business in the country? but that?s not the case.

. . . you made up the "Luxury Housing Grant", and there is no such thing.

No. _ I didn?t make it up, California did. _ Just because I uncovered someone else?s preposterous attempt to use public infrastructure grants to build luxury private housing doesn?t mean I made anything up. _ California made it up, I discovered and reported it, taxpayers and legislators were outraged, and the state disapproved it.

. . . when you . . . make misleading statements. . .

You misled yourself by not reading what you needed to read, not knowing what you needed to know, and making assumptions about all the rest.

. . . one can only assume its for your personal agenda, and not because you are working toward a greater public good.

Again, you?re running only on assumptions. _ You have no knowledge of my personal agenda ? whatever it might be ? and thus have no basis for saying what it is, or whether it works toward greater public good, or anything else about it, for that matter. _ If you truly believe that every personal agenda is always selfish, perhaps all your experiences are only with ungenerous agendas to begin with.

For many years I have advocated for total development of all city air rights, by qualified developers, with competitive bids, using full financial disclosure, that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan, and that reduce public health risks instead of adding new ones. _ That?s never changed, and it benefits everyone. _ That may or may not be a lot of people?s personal agendas, as well, but no one can intelligently argue that those principles don?t serve a greater good.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

State House News Service, September 8, 2008 5:16:59 PM EDT

[Size=+2]State Capitol Briefs:

COLUMBUS CENTER PROJECT HIRES NEW PR FIRM[/size]

As a pair of development consultants attempts to save the $800 million project aimed at linking Boston?s Back Bay and South End neighborhoods, the project has picked up a new public relations shop. _ McDermott Ventures, a public affairs and strategic communications firm, replaces Regan Communications and its chief executive officer, Alan Eisner, on the troubled Columbus Center project.

Regan will still work for Winn/Cassin Development, one of the owners of the project, according to Stephen Dunleavy, general manager for Regan Communications, but won?t handle the project. _ McDermott Ventures represents The Beal Companies and The Related Companies, the two developers trying to rescue the project.

?When Related Companies and Beal were retained as development consultants for the Columbus Center project, the development team asked that all communications be coordinated through one party,? said Brooke Botello, a senior account executive at the firm. _ ?McDermott Ventures has represented the Beal/Related team for the past five years and will handle all external communications during the analysis.?

Other McDermott clients include The New England Aquarium, The Boston Globe, and Filene?s Basement. _ McDermott Ventures also features on its website a twice-weekly local development and transportation column by former Globe reporter Thomas Palmer, who often covered the project for the paper before he took a buyout this year. _ He is now an ?independent communications consultant,? according to the site.

Seeking an 18-month extension to resolve funding problems with private financing, the project?s developers meet with officials from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which owns the air rights to the area, on Sept. 15. _ ?The focus for the turnpike will be trying to finalize the terms of the 18-month extension, but more importantly, making sure the site is cleaned and maintained during that hiatus,? said Mac Daniel, a Turnpike spokesman. _ Turnpike executive director Alan LeBovidge won?t attend the meeting, but will be at a community meeting on the project Sept. 25.

Earlier this year, the Patrick administration pulled back $20 million in project grants and loans, which had come under fire from House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi as a form of corporate welfare.

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Heh. Two ex-Globe employees doing PR.