Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Thanks, InTheHood, for your refreshingly polite thoughts._ Had you caught some earlier posts, though, you might have written otherwise, because the assumptions you bring from other projects don?t apply here, for example:
As always, my point was never with respect to ?construction? cost._ It has always been about total-development-cost._ Even developers who hadn?t pulled the public records fell for the myth of the so-called ?deck premium?._ Yes, adding tunnels adds cost, but in this project, the added tunnels also added a property discount and other savings, which yielded a total-development-cost that is lower than if the same result were accomplished on terra firma._ It is the total-development-cost that is lower, not the construction cost._ (Re-read post #1278 on 21 August 2008.)
No, not at all; I do understand the different roles of general and limited partners._ But the multiple LLC agreements and the 3,400-page lease are clear:_ the relationship between current owner CalPERS-CUIP-MURC and former owner Winn has neither general partners nor limited partners. _ (Re-read post #746 on 15 April 2008).
No, not at all._ I cited figures that the developers previously swore to, but only to illustrate that, regardless of when in the 13-year cycle they claimed various figures, none of their numbers ever matched up._ I have never argued that the developers? numbers are correct, only that they did not hold up in the scenarios in which they were depicted._ Even the numbers that CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC swore to just last year ? under pains and penalties of perjury ? did not work.
The owners claimed to have investor funds, bank loans, and public subsidies that never materialized._ In particular, the bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The owners depicted high profit in their loan applications but little or no profit in their subsidy applications, which is not possible._ Both portrayals can?t be true.
No, I do recognize all those relationships. _ But none of them change two overarching facts:
? For 13 years, the owners always said they were ?ready to proceed?.
? For 13 years ? even in frothy economies ? every lender turned them down.
Having reviewed the public records, the lenders knew everything that forum members didn?t._ The lenders consistently refused to fund a proposal which some forum members keep cheering as if it were a sports team.
You incorrectly assume that subsidies were sought only because of rising costs and changing economies._ But that?s untrue._ From the outset in 1996, the owners? business plan was to propose the project as subsidy-free, get it approved as subsidy-free, and then quietly get subsidies to pay their costs and profits (re-read post #500 on 1 April 2008).
No, it?s not silly at all._ Here?s why. _ The owners wrote their own pro formas, and filed them with city, state, and federal agencies, under pains and penalties of perjury._ It was entirely their own doing that their numbers never matched up ? in any of the 13 years.
The project?s paralysis results from a swindle (using public money to pay for a 100% private project) that citizens discovered, and that elected officials halted._ Had that public subsidy juggernaut succeeded, capital would have been available, banks would have loaned, tunnels and buildings would have been built, private profits would have come in, and the public would have paid for it.
But most of the public subsidy dollars were ultimately denied, suspended, withdrawn, or otherwise not issued._ It is because of the project?s collective capital shortage that:
? lenders will not lend;
? current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) won?t release their funds;
? former owners (Winn) ran out of cash;
? MTA demanded $294,461,484 in unconditional, irrevocable completion guarantees;
? MTA refused to allow tunnel construction to start; and
? the proposal remains un-built.
No, they would add no cost at all, and value and revenue would increase, not decrease._ Here?s why._ The MTA policy has always been to charge fair market value for the property, adjusted downward for any extraordinary requirements that get imposed._ So if the 2-acre contiguous public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan were provided, and if the toxic air that the proposed project would vent into its own buildings and the surrounding communities were instead filtered and made safe, then the MTA would subtract such costs from the property cost, leaving the developers with no extra cost, but a safer and more attractive end product._ (Re-read post #935 on 6 May 2008.)
No, I?m not new to these topics._ I?ve met with developers, engineers, architects, environmental scientists, physicians, lawyers, and others professionals to test both the information in the public records, and the resulting conclusions._ Unlike some forum members who just log in, read only the latest message, blurt an un-researched opinion, and then leave, I validated each conclusion with knowledgeable people before posting it.
My goal is getting met._ Most forum messages in 2006-2007 were peppered with ?I imagine?, ?I heard?, ?as far as I know?, ?someone told me?, ?probably?, ?usually?, ?it seems?, etcetera._ Since so many members were posting beliefs from other projects instead of facts from this one, I joined and posted what I had already researched, so members could react to information that they hadn?t yet seen._ Some members understand the issues I raise; others insist on disagreeing but refuse to pull the data for themselves, so their arguments continue ? unchanged and uninformed._ But my goal ? hearing forum members? reactions to what the public records show ? is getting met.
The other venues in which I operate are more receptive to what the public records show, and what that data means._ But despite this forum?s frequent name-calling and intermittent profanity (which were predicted the day I joined), some of the reactions here are still well worth collecting.
In January, the future owners (Beal/Related) will announce what conditions they insist upon in order to purchase the proposal from the former owners (Winn) and the current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC)._ Absent some other news in the interim, it seems unlikely that there will be much else to discuss until then.
Thanks, InTheHood, for your refreshingly polite thoughts._ Had you caught some earlier posts, though, you might have written otherwise, because the assumptions you bring from other projects don?t apply here, for example:
As always, my point was never with respect to ?construction? cost._ It has always been about total-development-cost._ Even developers who hadn?t pulled the public records fell for the myth of the so-called ?deck premium?._ Yes, adding tunnels adds cost, but in this project, the added tunnels also added a property discount and other savings, which yielded a total-development-cost that is lower than if the same result were accomplished on terra firma._ It is the total-development-cost that is lower, not the construction cost._ (Re-read post #1278 on 21 August 2008.)
No, not at all; I do understand the different roles of general and limited partners._ But the multiple LLC agreements and the 3,400-page lease are clear:_ the relationship between current owner CalPERS-CUIP-MURC and former owner Winn has neither general partners nor limited partners. _ (Re-read post #746 on 15 April 2008).
No, not at all._ I cited figures that the developers previously swore to, but only to illustrate that, regardless of when in the 13-year cycle they claimed various figures, none of their numbers ever matched up._ I have never argued that the developers? numbers are correct, only that they did not hold up in the scenarios in which they were depicted._ Even the numbers that CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC swore to just last year ? under pains and penalties of perjury ? did not work.
The owners claimed to have investor funds, bank loans, and public subsidies that never materialized._ In particular, the bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for._ The owners depicted high profit in their loan applications but little or no profit in their subsidy applications, which is not possible._ Both portrayals can?t be true.
No, I do recognize all those relationships. _ But none of them change two overarching facts:
? For 13 years, the owners always said they were ?ready to proceed?.
? For 13 years ? even in frothy economies ? every lender turned them down.
Having reviewed the public records, the lenders knew everything that forum members didn?t._ The lenders consistently refused to fund a proposal which some forum members keep cheering as if it were a sports team.
You incorrectly assume that subsidies were sought only because of rising costs and changing economies._ But that?s untrue._ From the outset in 1996, the owners? business plan was to propose the project as subsidy-free, get it approved as subsidy-free, and then quietly get subsidies to pay their costs and profits (re-read post #500 on 1 April 2008).
No, it?s not silly at all._ Here?s why. _ The owners wrote their own pro formas, and filed them with city, state, and federal agencies, under pains and penalties of perjury._ It was entirely their own doing that their numbers never matched up ? in any of the 13 years.
The project?s paralysis results from a swindle (using public money to pay for a 100% private project) that citizens discovered, and that elected officials halted._ Had that public subsidy juggernaut succeeded, capital would have been available, banks would have loaned, tunnels and buildings would have been built, private profits would have come in, and the public would have paid for it.
But most of the public subsidy dollars were ultimately denied, suspended, withdrawn, or otherwise not issued._ It is because of the project?s collective capital shortage that:
? lenders will not lend;
? current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) won?t release their funds;
? former owners (Winn) ran out of cash;
? MTA demanded $294,461,484 in unconditional, irrevocable completion guarantees;
? MTA refused to allow tunnel construction to start; and
? the proposal remains un-built.
No, they would add no cost at all, and value and revenue would increase, not decrease._ Here?s why._ The MTA policy has always been to charge fair market value for the property, adjusted downward for any extraordinary requirements that get imposed._ So if the 2-acre contiguous public park required by the Turnpike Master Plan were provided, and if the toxic air that the proposed project would vent into its own buildings and the surrounding communities were instead filtered and made safe, then the MTA would subtract such costs from the property cost, leaving the developers with no extra cost, but a safer and more attractive end product._ (Re-read post #935 on 6 May 2008.)
No, I?m not new to these topics._ I?ve met with developers, engineers, architects, environmental scientists, physicians, lawyers, and others professionals to test both the information in the public records, and the resulting conclusions._ Unlike some forum members who just log in, read only the latest message, blurt an un-researched opinion, and then leave, I validated each conclusion with knowledgeable people before posting it.
My goal is getting met._ Most forum messages in 2006-2007 were peppered with ?I imagine?, ?I heard?, ?as far as I know?, ?someone told me?, ?probably?, ?usually?, ?it seems?, etcetera._ Since so many members were posting beliefs from other projects instead of facts from this one, I joined and posted what I had already researched, so members could react to information that they hadn?t yet seen._ Some members understand the issues I raise; others insist on disagreeing but refuse to pull the data for themselves, so their arguments continue ? unchanged and uninformed._ But my goal ? hearing forum members? reactions to what the public records show ? is getting met.
The other venues in which I operate are more receptive to what the public records show, and what that data means._ But despite this forum?s frequent name-calling and intermittent profanity (which were predicted the day I joined), some of the reactions here are still well worth collecting.
In January, the future owners (Beal/Related) will announce what conditions they insist upon in order to purchase the proposal from the former owners (Winn) and the current owners (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC)._ Absent some other news in the interim, it seems unlikely that there will be much else to discuss until then.
