Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Again, you missed the earlier posts on this subject, and apparently are relying more upon the California spokeswoman?s unsubstantiated claims to reporters than on California?s public subsidy applications filed at city, state, and federal agencies._ So here?s a short summary._ The original lease signed in May 2006 ? and the amended lease negotiated in 2008 ? both include provisions for this 14-year construction period:
Thus, no new permanent jobs would be created until 2026._ Furthermore, the claimed construction jobs were exaggerated about ten-fold, because each such ?job? is only a few weeks of temporary work in a specific trade._ Also, all that work would go to existing workers, in existing positions, at existing employers, so none of those construction jobs would be new.
Years ago, the political winds blew along several supporters._ But that was before Senator Wilkerson?s arrest, indictment, and election defeat._ The proposal has no political supporters left today._ As of 24 January 2009, no City councilor is supporting the $137 million DIF subsidy, Mayor Menino is not supporting it, no state legislator is supporting the $50 million federal stimulus subsidy, and state officials are not considering any other past, present, or future subsidies for Columbus Center.
California?s managers admit to still seeking every subsidy they can get their hands on._ But the desires of California?s managers are now the opposite of the positions of elected officials in Washington, Massachusetts, and Boston.
By the way, there is no ?select few?._ Over the last 6 years, the citizens who objected to Massachusetts public funds subsidizing California?s private venture aren?t few; they are many._ And they aren?t select; they cover a broad cross section of voters._ The 200 state legislators who do not support any government bail-out for Columbus Center reflect the views of their millions of constituents._ Less than 1% of those constituents are Columbus Center cheerleaders who are already riding on ? or who hope to hitch a ride on ? the real estate industry gravy train.
You missed the earlier posts on this subject, so here?s a short summary._ Last November, at the request of the Office of Housing and Economic Development, I submitted supplemental information on the Columbus Center proposal, including public records that the developers had denied and withheld._ After examining that withheld information, the state disqualified the request for a $20 million construction grant._ That?s because such grants are only for publicly owned infrastructure, and Columbus Center is 100% privately owned, especially the tunnels, decks, platforms, and parks._ The answer to your question is that every municipality in the state has better ways to spend that money, because every municipality has publicly owned infrastructure, while Columbus Center has none.
Again, you missed the earlier posts on this subject, and apparently are relying more upon the California spokeswoman?s unsubstantiated claims to reporters than on California?s public subsidy applications filed at city, state, and federal agencies._ So here?s a short summary._ The original lease signed in May 2006 ? and the amended lease negotiated in 2008 ? both include provisions for this 14-year construction period:
Thus, no new permanent jobs would be created until 2026._ Furthermore, the claimed construction jobs were exaggerated about ten-fold, because each such ?job? is only a few weeks of temporary work in a specific trade._ Also, all that work would go to existing workers, in existing positions, at existing employers, so none of those construction jobs would be new.
Years ago, the political winds blew along several supporters._ But that was before Senator Wilkerson?s arrest, indictment, and election defeat._ The proposal has no political supporters left today._ As of 24 January 2009, no City councilor is supporting the $137 million DIF subsidy, Mayor Menino is not supporting it, no state legislator is supporting the $50 million federal stimulus subsidy, and state officials are not considering any other past, present, or future subsidies for Columbus Center.
California?s managers admit to still seeking every subsidy they can get their hands on._ But the desires of California?s managers are now the opposite of the positions of elected officials in Washington, Massachusetts, and Boston.
By the way, there is no ?select few?._ Over the last 6 years, the citizens who objected to Massachusetts public funds subsidizing California?s private venture aren?t few; they are many._ And they aren?t select; they cover a broad cross section of voters._ The 200 state legislators who do not support any government bail-out for Columbus Center reflect the views of their millions of constituents._ Less than 1% of those constituents are Columbus Center cheerleaders who are already riding on ? or who hope to hitch a ride on ? the real estate industry gravy train.
Last edited:
)
