Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: Columbus Center
No, Toby certainly doesn't need our defense, but he gets it anyhow. If we had a Top Contributors Award, sort of an abB MVP Award, Toby would for sure get one of my votes (for all the reasons mentioned above).
No, Toby certainly doesn't need our defense, but he gets it anyhow. If we had a Top Contributors Award, sort of an abB MVP Award, Toby would for sure get one of my votes (for all the reasons mentioned above).
Re: Columbus Center
We all want something to be built over the Pike, but I'm not sure we all want our tax dollars paying for it....luxury condos and hotels for rich people..... so that Arthur Winn and the State of California can make more profit. I sure don't.
If Winn spent his money actually building the darned thing the way he proposed it, instead of spending it to bribe politicians, these arguments would be unecessary and we'd have a complex there today.
It's time for the Turnpike to boot these bozos and put these parcels out to bid so that a competent developer can get something built....without having to beg for taxpayer money and bribing politicians to do it.
We all want something to be built over the Pike, but I'm not sure we all want our tax dollars paying for it....luxury condos and hotels for rich people..... so that Arthur Winn and the State of California can make more profit. I sure don't.
If Winn spent his money actually building the darned thing the way he proposed it, instead of spending it to bribe politicians, these arguments would be unecessary and we'd have a complex there today.
It's time for the Turnpike to boot these bozos and put these parcels out to bid so that a competent developer can get something built....without having to beg for taxpayer money and bribing politicians to do it.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Columbus Center
Thanks for your kind comments.
The logic of this thread boils down to a simple proposition: objective forum members can separate an appreciation of the urbanism of the project from a dislike of a "can't do" developer. This rule excepts self interested parties, such as those who don't want anything tall built because it blocks their view. Push that button, and you smoke them out.
See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Thanks for your kind comments.
The logic of this thread boils down to a simple proposition: objective forum members can separate an appreciation of the urbanism of the project from a dislike of a "can't do" developer. This rule excepts self interested parties, such as those who don't want anything tall built because it blocks their view. Push that button, and you smoke them out.
See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Re: Columbus Center
Toby your my hero man!
Toby your my hero man!
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Columbus Center
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Thank you Wikipedia. Vo Tech never offered no Latin.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Thank you Wikipedia. Vo Tech never offered no Latin.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Re: Columbus Center
^^ Sorry Seamus, you are correct, that was a poor way for me to phrase it.
So... Let's lay off the personal attacks. And I don't say that as mod, but rather as someone who really hates that kind of argument. It's just weak. (Although I'll admit I'm just as guilty as anyone).
Carry on.
^^ Sorry Seamus, you are correct, that was a poor way for me to phrase it.
So... Let's lay off the personal attacks. And I don't say that as mod, but rather as someone who really hates that kind of argument. It's just weak. (Although I'll admit I'm just as guilty as anyone).
Carry on.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: Columbus Center
Ron, to answer your question, yes, we can discuss the project on several levels - its architectural merit, its effects on the neighborhood, its costs and benefits to the city as a whole, etc., etc., etc.
I'm on record as saying I don't like public subsidies of any sort. I wrote about it on my blog and wrote about it in the South End News.
The only good point Dianne Wilkerson ever said about this, though, is that, we're fooling ourselves if we think subsidies aren't taking place. Drive down Route 1 in Foxboro to see what $300 million will buy.
What's good for the gander is good for the goose. If they exist, then I demand my local elected officials get our fair share.
The funding of the project is just one of many (1,000) excuses that Mr Flaherty uses in his defense of his point of view. He is just throwing up as many problems as possible, hoping one or more stick. Don't blame him for that, per se.
The city is made up of many more people than those who live 200 feet from this project. I do not think those who are affected most have any right to a say than do the rest of us who live, work, or pay taxes.
The only problem I had / have with the project is that I think the hotel is a bit too tall for what's around it. But, w/e, you can't have everything. The benefits are many to this project - a built neighborhood where before there was nothing (except rail lines and before that, open fields), tax revenue, a vibrant retail / shopping district, etc.
Ron, to answer your question, yes, we can discuss the project on several levels - its architectural merit, its effects on the neighborhood, its costs and benefits to the city as a whole, etc., etc., etc.
I'm on record as saying I don't like public subsidies of any sort. I wrote about it on my blog and wrote about it in the South End News.
The only good point Dianne Wilkerson ever said about this, though, is that, we're fooling ourselves if we think subsidies aren't taking place. Drive down Route 1 in Foxboro to see what $300 million will buy.
What's good for the gander is good for the goose. If they exist, then I demand my local elected officials get our fair share.
The funding of the project is just one of many (1,000) excuses that Mr Flaherty uses in his defense of his point of view. He is just throwing up as many problems as possible, hoping one or more stick. Don't blame him for that, per se.
The city is made up of many more people than those who live 200 feet from this project. I do not think those who are affected most have any right to a say than do the rest of us who live, work, or pay taxes.
The only problem I had / have with the project is that I think the hotel is a bit too tall for what's around it. But, w/e, you can't have everything. The benefits are many to this project - a built neighborhood where before there was nothing (except rail lines and before that, open fields), tax revenue, a vibrant retail / shopping district, etc.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
Re: Columbus Center
Before Ned decides to Photoshop the print version, here is a link to a long Globe interview with Winn about his relationship with Wilkerson. The article is about politics and not the Columbus Center per se.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/02/05/developer_defends_giving_wilkerson_money/
Before Ned decides to Photoshop the print version, here is a link to a long Globe interview with Winn about his relationship with Wilkerson. The article is about politics and not the Columbus Center per se.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/02/05/developer_defends_giving_wilkerson_money/
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Closer examination shows that today?s entire article is, indeed, all about Columbus Center._ More precisely, it?s about the politics of Columbus Center, now an emblem for the politics of real estate development._ No, it doesn?t discuss struts and beams._ But for a forum that is all about the built environment, and about how that environment gets built, this story is essential, because it goes to the heart of the 14-year Columbus Center Conundrum:
? Who pays to build what someone else owns?
? Who loses?
? Who profits?
? By how much?
? And when?
? And how?
? And why?
The answer to this Conundrum would be seen in a certified public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies per the Commonwealth's GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards).
Noteworthy is the fact that California?s managers continue seeking public subsidies, while California?s lawyers refuse to allow any public audit.
In keeping with the forum?s long-standing convention, the article, photo, and caption appear inside the next post.
Closer examination shows that today?s entire article is, indeed, all about Columbus Center._ More precisely, it?s about the politics of Columbus Center, now an emblem for the politics of real estate development._ No, it doesn?t discuss struts and beams._ But for a forum that is all about the built environment, and about how that environment gets built, this story is essential, because it goes to the heart of the 14-year Columbus Center Conundrum:
? Who pays to build what someone else owns?
? Who loses?
? Who profits?
? By how much?
? And when?
? And how?
? And why?
The answer to this Conundrum would be seen in a certified public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies per the Commonwealth's GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards).
Noteworthy is the fact that California?s managers continue seeking public subsidies, while California?s lawyers refuse to allow any public audit.
In keeping with the forum?s long-standing convention, the article, photo, and caption appear inside the next post.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]Developer defends giving Wilkerson money[/size]
Boston Globe ? 5 February 2009 ? By Casey Ross
Arthur Winn (center), shown with Bill Wollinger and Susan Malatesta of Winn Properties, said his gift to Dianne Wilkerson was unrelated to a quest for state subsidies.
Boston developer Arthur Winn said he gave $10,000 to former state senator Dianne Wilkerson in 2004 to help a "close friend" with her tax debts, and not because he wanted her assistance getting public funds for his troubled Columbus Center project.
Winn spoke for the first time about his long relationship with Wilkerson because he said disclosure of the payment threatened to tarnish his reputation and overshadow the $810 million development he is trying to build over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston. Winn's firm was subpoenaed by federal investigators who have brought unrelated bribery charges against Wilkerson.
The 69-year-old developer said he gave Wilkerson money because he did not want to see her career cut short by financial problems. And he vehemently denied the payment had anything to do with Wilkerson's efforts almost two years later to try to get public subsidies for Columbus Center.
"There was never a quid pro quo between Dianne and me," he said.
Speaking from the Faneuil Hall offices of WinnCompanies, Winn also said he would not be pushed out of the Columbus Center development by his partners, a California state pension fund and its real estate manager MacFarlane Partners, who own a controlling interest in the condo, hotel, and retail project. After The Boston Globe disclosed Winn's payment to Wilkerson last month, the California partners issued a statement saying the arrangement could constitute a "serious breach" of the partnership agreement. Such a violation could be grounds for removing Winn from the project.
"I'm not going to be booted out by this salacious attack on my reputation by the Globe," Winn said, his voice rising. "I've been at this . . . for 11 years. I've sunk a lot of time and effort in it, and I'd hate to see it die for many, many reasons, not the least of which is ego."
MacFarlane and the California fund declined to comment.
Wilkerson was arrested in October by federal agents and charged with taking thousands of dollars in bribes from a Roxbury nightclub operator who wanted a city liquor license and from an undercover FBI agent posing as a developer interested in building on state property.
Wilkerson could not be reached for comment, and her attorney did not return a call for comment.
Despite her history of financial problems, Winn said he remained a staunch fan of Wilkerson, who in 1997 was convicted of tax evasion and had two separate settlements with the Massachusetts attorney general for campaign finance violations. The two share an interest in affordable housing - his firm manages 4,000 apartments in her former district. Winn was an enthusiastic fund-raiser for her political campaigns, and Wilkerson emerged over the years as one of the most vocal supporters of Columbus Center.
"She's an accident looking for an intersection all the time," Winn said, adding that Wilkerson was also one of the most articulate politicians he'd ever met. "I thought she was terrific. I was always a big fan."
It was her tax conviction that led to the $10,000 payment from Winn. Faced with owing $100,000 in back taxes, Wilkerson told the Globe, she sought and obtained approval from the State Ethics Commission in 1997 to solicit donations to help with her personal finances. A fund was set up at the Boston law firm Foley Hoag to collect the donations.
"When I heard this was available," Winn recalled, "I said, 'Boy, whatever the powers that be, who knows what happened to get it set up that way.' But I sent my check to a very prestigious attorney, made out to Dianne." He said he did not recall when he learned of the fund's creation.
Even in hindsight, Winn said he never thought the gift would pose ethical or legal problems, and his own lawyers who reviewed the donation told him it was legal.
"I don't spend time studying the rules," he said. "I ask my attorneys, 'Can I give this gift? I'd love to.' And they say, 'Yes, it's been totally vetted at the ethics commissions.' The lawyers all looked at it and said I could do it."
Winn was one of several business executives who donated to the fund, but his payment appears to violate a key restriction the ethics commission placed on Wilkerson's fund raising: That she not take money from anyone with business before the Legislature. If someone later did have business before the Legislature, she was required to disclose it to the commission.
"The fact that she didn't do that is terrible, because it could get me into trouble," Winn said. "That would be the one thing that would make me angry about Dianne: She didn't do the right thing by the people who gave her the gift, because she didn't report it."
Winn's payment was made in January 2004. Then, 22 months later, in November 2005, Wilkerson successfully lobbied the state Senate to support a $4.3 million appropriation for Columbus Center, which needed help paying for a deck over the turnpike. The Legislature did not approve the funding.
Winn said there was never a "stated or unstated" understanding with Wilkerson surrounding his $10,000 payment, and that at the time he made it, he had no inkling Columbus Center would need help from the state.
"I don't follow those things," added Winn, who said he left issues involving public subsidies for the project to subordinates at his company. "And if I needed (Wilkerson's) vote, I wouldn't ask for it anyway."
Nonetheless, Winn said he and Wilkerson spoke frequently about Columbus Center, usually with the senator calling to ask how she could be helpful. Winn said he knew that whenever he would broach the topic of state financial help, Wilkerson would insist that, in turn, his project include jobs for her constituents.
"Dianne would give and get," Winn said. "Once she would get some money" for a development project, "she would associate it with a set-aside for minority employees, which is always what I expected."
Winn would not discuss the federal investigation into Wilkerson or his contact with authorities. Shortly after her arrest, his firm was among those rreceiving subpoenas asking for communications with Wilkerson and other individuals involved in her political dealings.
He said her arrest - and accompanying FBI surveillance images of her accepting wads of cash - was a "disgrace."
"It was a terrible, terrible day," he said. "I'm just very sad for her. I'm sad for many things. I'm sad she was the sole supporter of her family. I'm sad she never had any money. I'm sad she didn't have the support that many of the people on the hill have. It's a tragedy."
[size=+2]Developer defends giving Wilkerson money[/size]
Boston Globe ? 5 February 2009 ? By Casey Ross
Arthur Winn (center), shown with Bill Wollinger and Susan Malatesta of Winn Properties, said his gift to Dianne Wilkerson was unrelated to a quest for state subsidies.
Boston developer Arthur Winn said he gave $10,000 to former state senator Dianne Wilkerson in 2004 to help a "close friend" with her tax debts, and not because he wanted her assistance getting public funds for his troubled Columbus Center project.
Winn spoke for the first time about his long relationship with Wilkerson because he said disclosure of the payment threatened to tarnish his reputation and overshadow the $810 million development he is trying to build over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston. Winn's firm was subpoenaed by federal investigators who have brought unrelated bribery charges against Wilkerson.
The 69-year-old developer said he gave Wilkerson money because he did not want to see her career cut short by financial problems. And he vehemently denied the payment had anything to do with Wilkerson's efforts almost two years later to try to get public subsidies for Columbus Center.
"There was never a quid pro quo between Dianne and me," he said.
Speaking from the Faneuil Hall offices of WinnCompanies, Winn also said he would not be pushed out of the Columbus Center development by his partners, a California state pension fund and its real estate manager MacFarlane Partners, who own a controlling interest in the condo, hotel, and retail project. After The Boston Globe disclosed Winn's payment to Wilkerson last month, the California partners issued a statement saying the arrangement could constitute a "serious breach" of the partnership agreement. Such a violation could be grounds for removing Winn from the project.
"I'm not going to be booted out by this salacious attack on my reputation by the Globe," Winn said, his voice rising. "I've been at this . . . for 11 years. I've sunk a lot of time and effort in it, and I'd hate to see it die for many, many reasons, not the least of which is ego."
MacFarlane and the California fund declined to comment.
Wilkerson was arrested in October by federal agents and charged with taking thousands of dollars in bribes from a Roxbury nightclub operator who wanted a city liquor license and from an undercover FBI agent posing as a developer interested in building on state property.
Wilkerson could not be reached for comment, and her attorney did not return a call for comment.
Despite her history of financial problems, Winn said he remained a staunch fan of Wilkerson, who in 1997 was convicted of tax evasion and had two separate settlements with the Massachusetts attorney general for campaign finance violations. The two share an interest in affordable housing - his firm manages 4,000 apartments in her former district. Winn was an enthusiastic fund-raiser for her political campaigns, and Wilkerson emerged over the years as one of the most vocal supporters of Columbus Center.
"She's an accident looking for an intersection all the time," Winn said, adding that Wilkerson was also one of the most articulate politicians he'd ever met. "I thought she was terrific. I was always a big fan."
It was her tax conviction that led to the $10,000 payment from Winn. Faced with owing $100,000 in back taxes, Wilkerson told the Globe, she sought and obtained approval from the State Ethics Commission in 1997 to solicit donations to help with her personal finances. A fund was set up at the Boston law firm Foley Hoag to collect the donations.
"When I heard this was available," Winn recalled, "I said, 'Boy, whatever the powers that be, who knows what happened to get it set up that way.' But I sent my check to a very prestigious attorney, made out to Dianne." He said he did not recall when he learned of the fund's creation.
Even in hindsight, Winn said he never thought the gift would pose ethical or legal problems, and his own lawyers who reviewed the donation told him it was legal.
"I don't spend time studying the rules," he said. "I ask my attorneys, 'Can I give this gift? I'd love to.' And they say, 'Yes, it's been totally vetted at the ethics commissions.' The lawyers all looked at it and said I could do it."
Winn was one of several business executives who donated to the fund, but his payment appears to violate a key restriction the ethics commission placed on Wilkerson's fund raising: That she not take money from anyone with business before the Legislature. If someone later did have business before the Legislature, she was required to disclose it to the commission.
"The fact that she didn't do that is terrible, because it could get me into trouble," Winn said. "That would be the one thing that would make me angry about Dianne: She didn't do the right thing by the people who gave her the gift, because she didn't report it."
Winn's payment was made in January 2004. Then, 22 months later, in November 2005, Wilkerson successfully lobbied the state Senate to support a $4.3 million appropriation for Columbus Center, which needed help paying for a deck over the turnpike. The Legislature did not approve the funding.
Winn said there was never a "stated or unstated" understanding with Wilkerson surrounding his $10,000 payment, and that at the time he made it, he had no inkling Columbus Center would need help from the state.
"I don't follow those things," added Winn, who said he left issues involving public subsidies for the project to subordinates at his company. "And if I needed (Wilkerson's) vote, I wouldn't ask for it anyway."
Nonetheless, Winn said he and Wilkerson spoke frequently about Columbus Center, usually with the senator calling to ask how she could be helpful. Winn said he knew that whenever he would broach the topic of state financial help, Wilkerson would insist that, in turn, his project include jobs for her constituents.
"Dianne would give and get," Winn said. "Once she would get some money" for a development project, "she would associate it with a set-aside for minority employees, which is always what I expected."
Winn would not discuss the federal investigation into Wilkerson or his contact with authorities. Shortly after her arrest, his firm was among those rreceiving subpoenas asking for communications with Wilkerson and other individuals involved in her political dealings.
He said her arrest - and accompanying FBI surveillance images of her accepting wads of cash - was a "disgrace."
"It was a terrible, terrible day," he said. "I'm just very sad for her. I'm sad for many things. I'm sad she was the sole supporter of her family. I'm sad she never had any money. I'm sad she didn't have the support that many of the people on the hill have. It's a tragedy."
Re: Columbus Center
This article confirms, once and for all, that California owns and controls this project....they're not just "silent investors" like many have argued.
Also, if you read the comments from Boston Globe readers after the article, you'll find that the "widespread community support" for this project is also a myth.
Sounds like a Winn-Lose situation to me.
This article confirms, once and for all, that California owns and controls this project....they're not just "silent investors" like many have argued.
Also, if you read the comments from Boston Globe readers after the article, you'll find that the "widespread community support" for this project is also a myth.
Sounds like a Winn-Lose situation to me.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
Long-standing convention? Can you please cite where you got that idea from? You are allowed to post newspaper articles just about any way you like, except by reproducing the actual copyrighted physical newspaper including print-only photos with your scanner without permission from the copyright owner. I thought you were a stickler for the rules, eh?
Long-standing convention? Can you please cite where you got that idea from? You are allowed to post newspaper articles just about any way you like, except by reproducing the actual copyrighted physical newspaper including print-only photos with your scanner without permission from the copyright owner. I thought you were a stickler for the rules, eh?
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Re: Columbus Center
Um...I think he means just posting the article like he did in his follow-up post. In the exact same style we all do. All the time.
Sorry Barbaric, I'm with Ned on this one.
Another funny point: If Ned never started posting here we would probably all be bitching about corrupt politicians and Winn royally screwing this up, instead everyone seems to feel obliged to defend the project via defending Winn. This conversely allows Ned to trash the project via Winn. When of course they should be seen as two separate things.
Columbus Center Project = Awesome
Winn = Possibly corrupt and most likely incompetent.
Um...I think he means just posting the article like he did in his follow-up post. In the exact same style we all do. All the time.
Sorry Barbaric, I'm with Ned on this one.
Another funny point: If Ned never started posting here we would probably all be bitching about corrupt politicians and Winn royally screwing this up, instead everyone seems to feel obliged to defend the project via defending Winn. This conversely allows Ned to trash the project via Winn. When of course they should be seen as two separate things.
Columbus Center Project = Awesome
Winn = Possibly corrupt and most likely incompetent.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
True. Unfortunately everything connected with doing business in the city requires some amount of corruption, whether you're a bar owner, or a large-scale developer.
- Status