Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

While that's probably true, I'm not sure I'm comfortable just accepting it.

We should be working on reforming the system so that it allows projects like CC to be built in a timely manner without having to resort to corruption.
 
Re: Columbus Center

^^ No kidding.

I guess I'm just saying it should be OK for people here to agree with Ned that maybe Winn isn't exactly a hero, while still maintaining that Columbus Center is a good project and should still be built as is. Which is pretty much the same thing Ron was saying earlier, I guess.

I'm also getting sick of people bashing Ned for the sake of bashing Ned. It's getting old.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Almost the same, except that I also consider this project relatively low on the list of projects that should receive public subsidies. It is, after all, surrounded by prosperity on all sides. Filene's is much more deserving of subsidy since its failure is radiating out into the surrounding blocks.
 
Re: Columbus Center

To: Stellarfun, Atlrvr, InTheHood, Atlantaden, Pelhamhall, Tommym96, JimboJones/JohnKeith, Sidewalks, Tobyjug, DarkFenX, Chumbolly, Kz1000ps, Suffolk83, and the like. . .

Public records written over the last 3 years showed Columbus Center?s management and decision-making taking place in California, not Boston._ Consequently, here and elsewhere, I called the project the California-owned Columbus Center._ I cited my sources.

But ? despite the facts ? Columbus Center cheerleaders always refused to accept the fact that the CalPERS, CUIP, and MURC organizations made all the Columbus Center decisions starting 15 March 2006, after buying the project outright from Winn Development._ Without any evidence, those strident apologists continued to deny the reality, and refused to check their assumptions against the records.

Today, Arthur Winn himself repeated exactly what I have been saying since August 2007.

?. . . MacFarlane has been making all major decisions with respect to Columbus Center for the last two years ? since reaching the point where its investment exceeded our own . . .?

From ?Winn responds to Wilkerson controversy?, Boston Globe, 5 February 2009
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
To: Stellarfun, Atlrvr, InTheHood, Atlantaden, Pelhamhall, Tommym96, JimboJones/JohnKeith, Sidewalks, Tobyjug, DarkFenX, Chumbolly, Kz1000ps, Suffolk83, and the like. . .

Public records written over the last 3 years showed Columbus Center?s management and decision-making taking place in California, not Boston._ Consequently, here and elsewhere, I called the project the California-owned Columbus Center._ I cited my sources.

But ? despite the facts ? Columbus Center cheerleaders always refused to accept the fact that the CalPERS, CUIP, and MURC organizations made all the Columbus Center decisions starting 15 March 2006, after buying the project outright from Winn Development._ Without any evidence, those strident apologists continued to deny the reality, and refused to check their assumptions against the records.

Today, Arthur Winn himself repeated exactly what I have been saying since August 2007.

?. . . MacFarlane has been making all major decisions with respect to Columbus Center for the last two years ? since reaching the point where its investment exceeded our own . . .?

From ?Winn responds to Wilkerson controversy?, Boston Globe, 5 February 2009
Click to expand...
Ned, the phrasing in red is self-contradictory.
 
Re: Columbus Center

stellarfun said:
. . . the phrasing in red is self-contradictory.
Click to expand...

I think you mean ?contradictory? instead of ?self-contradictory?, because ?self-contradictory? would be redundant.

No, Winn?s words and mine, which you marked in red, are not contradictory._ The Oxford University Press dictionary defines the adjective ?outright? as primarily meaning ?open and direct?, or alternatively meaning ?complete?, and the adverb ?outright? as meaning ?altogether?, ?openly?, or ?immediately?._ In business, an outright sale is one made without an encumbrance or lien.

The agreement memorializing the sale of Columbus Center ? along with MTA Lease Schedule S (?Joint Venture Capital Contribution Schedule?) ? together leave no doubt that the sale was open, direct, complete, altogether, immediate, and lien-free.

Winn?s poorly worded phrasing about capital contributions is irrelevant to, and has no bearing upon, my point.

The allocations of past investments and future profits fluctuate over time among the owners, but that in no way changes the overriding point of this and my previous posts, which is that Winn sold decision-making control to California, and ever since has been merely under contract to carry out California?s decisions._

In my posts about Columbus Center, ?California? means the CalPERS-CUIP-MURC organizations, because MURC (MacFarlane) gets 97% of its capital from the State of California, via CalPERS? off-the-books entity called CUIP.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
I think you mean ?contradictory? instead of ?self-contradictory?, because ?self-contradictory? would be redundant.
Click to expand...

self-con?tra?dic?tion (slfkntr-dkshn)
n.
1. The act, state, or fact of contradicting oneself.

No, it's not redundant. You're just contradicting yourself.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned Flaherty said:
To: Stellarfun, Atlrvr, InTheHood, Atlantaden, Pelhamhall, Tommym96, JimboJones/JohnKeith, Sidewalks, Tobyjug, DarkFenX, Chumbolly, Kz1000ps, Suffolk83, and the like. . .

Public records written over the last 3 years showed Columbus Center?s management and decision-making taking place in California, not Boston._ Consequently, here and elsewhere, I called the project the California-owned Columbus Center._ I cited my sources.
Click to expand...

As the Aussies would say, good on you, Ned.

I think it is fair to question the judgment of California decisionmakers. Look at the record: O.J. found innocent. The Governator. The Snuggie. Approving gay marriage and then repealing gay marriage. Naming an airport after someone who play acted hero rather than naming it after a real hero.

Now, I'm not against Californians per se because of their dubious political and cultural choices. And I'm not convinced you've made a case that, just because the ""real" developer is from out of state, it is a bad thing. Most of the economic choices we are dealing with in our great American Kleptocracy are dictated to us from elsewhere.

No, if I'm arguing for the prosecution my case is that if Winn is a bad, can't get it done developer, then the puppet master is no better.

So let's sweep them aside and bring in someone who can build this thing.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned, your persistent assertion has been that Winn had/has NO remaining financial interest in Columbus Center, and ownership of the project was/is entirely CalPERS and MacFarlane, lock, stock, and barrel. The counter-assertion made by me (and others) is that Winn retains an ownership stake, limited as it may be, in this project.

Winn said nothing in his Globe interview about having no financial interest in this project. He conceded he no longer had the major stake, but retained a minority interest (and a small one at that).
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

And as a supplemental point to stellarfun's closely reasoned analysis, so what?
 
Re: Columbus Center

makeitstop.jpg
 
Re: Columbus Center

tobyjug said:
Now, I'm not against Californians per se because of their dubious political and cultural choices. And I'm not convinced you've made a case that, just because the ""real" developer is from out of state, it is a bad thing. Most of the economic choices we are dealing with in our great American Kleptocracy are dictated to us from elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The issue is that Massachusetts taxpayers should not be subsidizing a luxury development so that the State of California can make more profit.
 
Re: Columbus Center

TedG said:
The issue is that Massachusetts taxpayers should not be subsidizing a luxury development so that the State of California can make more profit.
Click to expand...

No. That is too narrow. The better question is should Mass taxpayers be subsidizing a luxury development so that ANY developer can make more profit. The fixation on California is misplaced, and taints the deliberations with an appeal to parochial prejudice.
 
Re: Columbus Center

tobyjug said:
No. That is too narrow. The better question is should Mass taxpayers be subsidizing a luxury development so that ANY developer can make more profit. The fixation on California is misplaced, and taints the deliberations with an appeal to parochial prejudice.
Click to expand...

No, they should not. Especially when the develpment is for luxury condos for rich people that the developer can already afford to build without subsidies.....the way it was proposed and approved.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I respect your opinion, Ted. You have a well reasoned conclusion, one of several that reasonable persons could reach when weighing subsidies versus benefits. But it is absolutely fair for you to say to the developer: "you made your deal, live with it".

My take is not quite as Hammurabbic: if public subsidies are necessary for construction, I want the developer to take something of a haircut AND show me that the public is getting more benefits back. If the developer can't up the ante, adios. And I'm just not hearing from the developer what more he is going to give us.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

Ron Newman said:
But I came here for an argument!
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. This is abuse.

Thanks for the set up, Ron.

Damn. I caved. Promised I would't say anything in this thread again unless it was to ooooh and aaaah at pretty renderings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top