Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Columbus Center

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

I'm sorry, but this argument is really stupid. Out of state developers and owners participate in all kinds of development projects, and make a profit.

The ONLY valid question for the Massachusetts taxpayer participation in this development is whether there is a net gain for the Commonwealth in seeing the development move forward -- a gain above and beyond the taxpayer input. If that is the case, who cares who else also makes a gain.

I suspect that the lifetime property taxes alone for the development and the increased values in the area around Columbus Center more than compensates for any participation. And that does not calculate in any other economic benefits (like hotel tax, etc.) that ONLY HAPPEN IF IT IS BUILT!
 
Re: Columbus Center

And Jeff offers up an alternate well reasoned conclusion after balancing benefits versus subsidies.

I think at this point, reasonable people agree that the location of the investors (California) is a red herring.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I would suggest to JeffDowntown, and all others who want Columbus Center to be built so badly that they don't mind paying for it:

Have a meeting with the developer(s), whoever that might be, find out exactly how much taxpayper money is needed to build it, and then divvy up that sum amongst yourselves and give it to them.

You will, of course, have to take their word for it about the amount of money that will be needed, because they won't allow a certified public audit of the project.

I would rather see my tax dollars going to fund police, firefighters and schools.
 
Last edited:
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. . .

No._ Re-read all my messages on this point, if you need to.

I have always said, and have only said, that Winn sold both the CC project and the CC companies to California (the CalPERS, CUIP, and MURC organizations) on 15 March 2006, at which time they hired Winn and six subordinates, via contract, to implement the decisions that California has been making ever since._ Winn?s tiny fee is partly fixed and partly based on results, but in any event, Winn gets paid from profits last, if at all._ I said Winn forfeited control over the project, not financial interest in it._ I never said Winn had left the project.
 
Re: Columbus Center

. . . this argument is really stupid. Out of state developers and owners participate in all kinds of development projects, and make a profit.

The argument sounds stupid to you only because you misunderstand it._ The argument is not whether projects here can have owners elsewhere. _ The argument is whether public tax dollars should pay the costs and profits for a private owner who proposes a project as subsidy-free and then seeks a mountain of subsidies instead.

You see California being named because the project was proposed as subsidy-free and locally owned to get approved, but then turned out to be subsidy-laden and California-owned._ No one in Massachusetts has publicly said anything against Californians or the state that they live in._ But California is responsible for everything that this project has done ? and not done ? since 15 March 2006._ And it?s California that refuses to allow a certified public audit.

. . . The ONLY valid question for the Massachusetts taxpayer participation in this development is whether there is a net gain. . .

No, there are three valid questions.

1. How is ?net gain? defined? ? Development industry profiteers, including the former and current owners of Columbus Center, claim that any revenue increase at all is a ?net gain?, even if that gain is tiny, and hundreds of millions less than it would otherwise be without costly subsidies._ Taxpayers and elected officials disagree, because they expect projects that are proposed and approved as subsidy-free, and proposed and approved as paying full taxes, to stay subsidy-free and to pay full taxes.

2. What are the costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies? ? The proposal is in its 14th year, and still no one knows._ Lawyers for the former and current owners continue vigorously refusing a certified public audit, so the government agencies being asked to ?invest? in this speculative venture have no fiscal notion about the safety, duration, or return on their investment. _ You can?t blame citizens and their elected officials for refusing.

3. What is available from pre-qualified, competitive, Master-Plan-compliant, subsidy-free proposals by other developers? ? After 14 years, still no one knows._ Winn gave Governor Cellucci $10,000 and got a sweetheart deal relieving him of being qualified, having competitors, and disclosing finances._ There?s no basis for proceeding with this proposal until the public compares it to competing proposals.

. . .I suspect that taxes alone . . . more than compensates . . .

Suspect whatever you like about the finances, but you don?t actually know anything at all about them, because there?s no certified public audit of the costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies per the Commonwealth?s GAGAS (Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards)._

No one knows who pays and who profits, or how much and when, or why.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

I would suggest to JeffDowntown, tobyjug, and all others who want Columbus Center to be built so badly that they don't mind paying for it:

Ted, passion clouds your reason. Breathe deep and read the posts: the current developer is a failure who has not offered any compelling reason why he should get a better deal than the one in place. It is conceivable that subsidy might have net benefits; the current developer hasn't made a case that even with subsidy he can deliver.

The Socratic approach involves stripping away the extraneous, such as the Californian non-sense, to get at the essentials. In your case, the essentials are that you believe that no subsidy should be given to anyone who wishes to develop the site for residential property that you classify as "luxury". Whether you believe that the site should not be developed at all is an open question. Either way, that's fine. I don't know if I agree, but you'll earn more respect for your opinions by use of reason rather than invective.

As a general note, most forum members are not lingam worshipers fetching buckets of milk to the temple for prayer. You would do well to keep that in mind.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Hi tobyjug, Thank you for your response and your thoughts; they are greatly appreciated.

You are right that I am passionate about this project, but it is not because I don't want the site developed. I, as everyone here, would love to see a wonderful develpment on this site. The objection I have to this particular project is the blatant dishonesty and corruption that has plagued it from the very beginning.

Columbus Center was presented and approved as being 100% funded by the developers. They even had an independent accountant give numerous presentations at the public meetings to show how the project would work without public subsidies.

Then, after they were caught going after taxpayer money to pay for their costs and increase their profits, they said (in the Boston Globe) that it was always their intention to seek public subsidies from the very beginning. In other words, they blatantly lied to the public from day one in order to get their approvals.

The fact that this development is luxury condos is just incidental. I do not object to luxury housing, and the fact that the current owner is California is also incidental. The universal issues I object to are corruption (paying off politicians!), lies, and the hijacking of the public process and public tax dollars for a project that was proposed and approved to be privately financed....along with the refusal of a public audit to reveal the true costs and profits of the project.

I cannot imagine why anyone who does not have a vested financial interest in this project would think these things are "okay" and that the public should just accept it as "business as usual."

If this site is EVER going to be developed, the Turnpike needs to boot these dishonest and incompetent developers NOW and put the parcels properly out to bid. It's time to find a competent developer, competitive bids (no more giving the governer a check to eliminate competition), full financial disclosure, and a REAL public process that is not purchased and controlled by the developer.

On a final note: As I said before, I do not live in the Columbus Center area. I live in Jamaica Plain, so any interest I have in this project is from the perspective of a Massachusetts taxpayer and not as a neighbor or abutter.
 
Last edited:
Re: Columbus Center

A cool neighborhood for a cool guy!
 
Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Senator?s gift to ethics reform[/size]

Boston Globe ? 15 February 2009

Former state senator Dianne Wilkerson has unintentionally exposed a vast, gaping, screaming hole in the state?s ethics laws. In an interview with the Globe in January, she acknowledged taking over $70,000 in private donations ? ostensibly from personal friends ? to pay down her personal debts. And the newspaper reported last Sunday that those friends included a number of businesspeople with interests before state government.

What?s striking, though, is that her donors, at least, may well be in the clear. The Legislature needs to toughen the law and crack down on gifts that look ? at best ? like off-the books campaign contributions of up to $10,000.

In 1997 and again in 2003, Wilkerson sought and received the Ethics Commission?s blessing to accept large gifts from friends. Its informal advisory letters presume that her donors would have no interest in legislative matters. But that hardly turned out to be so. According to last Sunday?s Globe, one donor was public works contractor Jay Cashman, who has done extensive work on state projects; another was construction executive Shelley Hoon, who in 2001 won a contract to renovate housing in Wilkerson?s district. The Globe reported last month that another donor was developer Arthur Winn, who later won the senator?s support for public financing for a megaproject in her district.

State law does prohibit state employees from taking ? and interested parties from offering ? any gift or gratuity that is worth more than $50 in exchange for an official act. But a 2000 Supreme Judicial Court ruling neutered the law. The court ruled that the law demanded ?proof of linkage? of a specific gift to a specific act by a public official. Such links are almost impossible to nail down. Was Wilkerson?s 2005 vote to give $4.3 million in state money to Winn?s Columbus Center project a quid pro quo for his donation the previous year?

Indeed, any gift that is blatant enough to trigger the gratuity law, as currently interpreted, would seem to violate bribery statutes as well.


But even if a gift to Wilkerson didn?t violate the gratuity law, her conduct ? though not her donors? ? may well have been illegal in other ways. Officials are forbidden to take any gifts offered to them because of their government positions. The former senator has argued that her donations came from friends, and a spokeswoman for Winn, for instance, said he and Wilkerson have known each other for more than 20 years. The crucial question, though, is whether Wilkerson?s donors made gifts to other friends who weren?t in public office, or whether the Wilkerson donations were anomalous. An aggressive Ethics Commission with strong subpoena powers might be able to answer that question.

By law, state officials must also publicly disclose any facts that might suggest that they are subject to improper influence. And in its letters to Wilkerson, the Ethics Commission specifically told her to disclose any gift if the giver later ?acquires an interest in legislative business.? She has not filed such disclosures.

But would writing a letter really have cured the damage to the public interest? Under state law, a developer who wanted to curry favor with Wilkerson via a campaign contribution could give no more than the state?s individual limit of $500. So why should anyone be allowed to offer a much larger amount of money for a public official?s personal benefit ? even if the gift would be disclosed?

Governor Patrick?s ethics package would strengthen the law by banning gifts made because of a public official?s government position; this prohibition would extend to recipients and givers alike. Under his proposal, a gift to a legislator from an interested party could violate the law even without a specific tie to an official act. Similarly, state Representative Martin Walsh has proposed to ban any gift to public officials by nonrelatives with business before the state.

Lawmakers should have no objection to these improvements. The system works best when politicians cannot solicit or take money from powerful interests ? and when those interests cannot offer or give it.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Ned, I need to call you later. Can I still reach you at (617) 574-8808?
 
Re: Columbus Center

Have I ever mentioned that I'm a fan of Columbus Center? Without subsidies, of course.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Columbus Center a curse - and a cause
Amid funding woes, political flap, developer Arthur Winn presses on
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / March 29, 2009


During his down moments, Arthur Winn curses the day he conceived of Columbus Center.

Over the past 12 years, he has run a political gantlet trying to build it, straining to sculpt a plan to unite two of Boston's most exclusive neighborhoods with a towering complex over the Massachusetts Turnpike.

He visited with neighbors and city officials. He battled through more than 120 community meetings. He hired top-flight lobbyists to secure public money from the mayor, lawmakers, and two governors. At one point, his efforts even reached the Bush White House.

But lately, Winn, one of the nation's most successful developers of affordable housing, has found only controversy and misfortune in Columbus Center, with its troubles often plunging him into bouts of introspection. When asked about his reasons for wanting to build it, Winn spoke not about the project's mission or profit, but about his state of mind.

"I would have to be lying on a couch to give you an appropriate answer," he said.

"I had a chance years and years ago to buy the Celtics. I probably should have. And all these years later, I had a chance to build what I thought was the most exciting job in the history of Boston. Certainly, I didn't want to lose money on it, but maybe making money was not the first priority."

Winn's campaign for Columbus Center has fed a political drama that is remarkable even for Boston, where development is something of a blood sport. The project had high-powered enemies, including former House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who used his leverage to repeatedly block Winn's attempts to get public funding.

Although DiMasi left Winn damaged, it was Winn's friends and unfortunate timing that hurt Columbus Center the most. He got backing from governors Deval Patrick and Mitt Romney, but they proved unwilling to help at critical moments.

And then came the debacle with a former state senator, Dianne Wilkerson, a top supporter whose arrest on bribery charges has made her one of the project's most visible liabilities.

The controversy has left Winn fighting to preserve his reputation. It has also left him trying to rescue a project that has become a political taboo, incapable of attracting a supporter who will defend it in the light of day.

"There is nobody in the city who picks up the phone and says, 'Before you step up against this, know I'm going to smack you if you do,' " Winn said.

"They say it in New York. In Boston, it's an intellectual exercise between governing and insanity. There are so many different currents of motivation."

With Columbus Center, Winn proposes a 35-story condominium tower, stores, and hotel on 7 acres between Arlington and Clarendon streets. The $810 million project would connect Boston's Back Bay and South End neighborhoods over the open scar of the turnpike.

Wilkerson was the project's chief supporter in the Legislature, saying it offered the promise of thousands of jobs for her constituents. Winn said she was a longtime friend whose support was welcome, until the day of her arrest.

The former Roxbury senator was accused in October of accepting $23,500 in bribes associated with a nightclub and a development site in Roxbury. None of the charges were related to Columbus Center, but Winn was among the executives and officials who received subpoenas.

A few months later, Winn acknowledged he was one of a number of supporters who gave her money to pay off a large federal tax debt. His gift was $10,000; it came 22 months before Wilkerson sought $4.3 million for Columbus Center in the Legislature.

Winn has vehemently defended the donation, saying he gave it because he wanted to help a friend in trouble, not because he wanted to influence the public process surrounding Columbus Center. "There was never a quid pro quo between Dianne and me," he said.

Well before the Wilkerson controversy, however, Winn was struggling to get the project off the ground.

Between 2003 and 2007, its price tag doubled, to about $800 million, causing Winn to launch a lobbying blitz to secure millions of dollars in public subsidies. His main targets were economic development officials in the Romney and Patrick administrations.

"Arthur was all over the agencies. He was asking for substantial amounts of money," said Douglas Foy, who was secretary of Commonwealth development under Romney. "Our response was that he was welcome to apply for any help, but his requests were well beyond the normal operating boundaries of our grant programs."

The requests included $6 million from the Executive Office of Transportation; $15 million from the Department of Housing and Community Development; and $15 million in low-cost loans from the Massachusetts Housing and Finance Agency, according to public records.

The lobbying prompted Romney on Nov. 2, 2004, to file a letter with the state Ethics Commission because Winn was such a big political supporter - donating along with his relatives more than $46,000 to Massachusetts Republican committees during Romney's tenure.

The governor's ethics disclosure stated that Romney would play no role in reviewing Winn's funding requests. Such disclosures are filed to protect against conflict-of-interest allegations.

Still, at one point Romney made a high-level intervention on Winn's behalf: The governor called Andrew Card, then chief of staff to President George W. Bush, to press Winn's case for financial assistance from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and from the government-chartered mortgage giant Fannie Mae, according a handwritten memo about the call that was filed in state housing records.

"Mitt called Card who called HUD to get FNMA [Fannie Mae] to stand by for Columbus Center," stated the memo, which the Globe obtained through a public records request. It is unclear from the memo when the call was made.

Romney said through a spokesman that he did not recall making the call. Card did not respond to requests for comment.

Columbus Center did receive $32.5 million in tax-exempt bonds from HUD, but nothing from Fannie Mae. And despite Romney's support, Winn only got $2 million from the Massachusetts housing agency.

A lifelong Republican, Winn initially fared better with the next governor, Democrat Deval Patrick, who is still in office. The Patrick administration approved a $20 million package of grants for Columbus Center that allowed Winn to begin construction in October 2007.

But the global credit crunch promptly undid that. Negotiations with Winn's primary lender, Anglo Irish Bank, collapsed, leaving him without a needed $430 million loan, and forcing Winn and his investment partner, the California state pension fund, to halt construction in March 2008. Weeks later, Patrick withdrew the state funding.

The project's management was trying to regroup in October when news broke of Wilkerson's arrest, leading to the subpoena, the ethical cloud, and more delays.

Today, Winn is a minority partner in Columbus Center, with a marginal role in the decision-making. The pension fund and its real estate consultants are now in charge of the project's finances.

Still, Winn said he intends to protect his $40 million investment and will continue to advocate for the project's construction.

"Whatever happens, I think for Boston the project should be completed for many reasons. It's so clear what the upsides are," Winn said, his voice rising. "I've been at this [expletive] for 11 years. I 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. But that's just no reason to go into a deal."


Link
 
Re: Columbus Center

Over the past 12 years, he has run a political gantlet trying to build it, straining to sculpt a plan to unite two of Boston's most exclusive neighborhoods with a towering complex over the Massachusetts Turnpike.

That's such bullshit. I'm never one of those Boston is the greatest this or that or is the most ___. ONLY in Boston would someone write that. Go pander to the South End residents some more you ass. Towering next to that actual tower thats about twice the size, yea thats what I call towering.

"I had a chance years and years ago to buy the Celtics.

Judging by your success, thank god you didn't, boss.
 
Re: Columbus Center

I would suggest leaving CC as it is. A canyon of diesel pollution with a picture of how CC would look like if built as a reminder of Boston crappy development approval process, NIMBY's godforsaken fear of change and bitchery, and how something so beneficial has been defaced by propaganda. I hope nothing gets built and all the whiny NIMBYs will suck the dirty air and get a nice view of a ditch.
 
Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]After big plans, all quiet at Columbus Center[/size]
Boston Herald ? 8 April 2009 ? By Thomas Grillo

The team hired to breathe new life into Columbus Center has missed another deadline.

Beal Cos. of Boston and Related Properties in New York promised they would complete a six-week review of the project?s finances to determine whether the stalled $850 million development could resume. But the latest target date expires today.

?No one from Beal has talked to me in months,? said state Rep. Bryon Rushing, a Roxbury Democrat. ?I have no idea what?s going on.?

Construction was halted last year on the 1.3 million-square-foot proposal, which includes a 35-story glass tower and four 11-story buildings to be built on a 7-acre deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike near the Back Bay MBTA station.

But problems over funding plagued the massive development as construction costs soared and financial backers and government grants evaporated. The developer recently forfeited $32.2 million in Empowerment Zone bond funding.

An abandoned construction site is the only evidence of the project.

Columbus Center?s owner ? California Urban Investment Partners-Winn Columbus Center LLC Development ? hired Beal and Related last year as consultants. But the new team has been unable to deliver.

In an e-mail to neighborhood activists in January, a Beal spokeswoman promised an update in 90 days.

John Herbert, a member of the Ellis Neighborhood Association, said he would like answers. ?We?ve been worn down by this project. It?s been going on for so long,? he said.

A spokeswoman for the developer said there are no updates at this time.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1164230
 
Re: Columbus Center

DarkFenX and KentXie, in hoping that nothing gets built, you have become the very same NIMBY of which you constantly complain.

For 14 years, the surrounding communities always wanted ? and still want ? a screened, qualified developer, who honors the Master Plan, with a proposal that survives public audit, to develop the air rights.

It?s not true that Columbus Center failed due to ?bitchery? ?fear-of-change?, or ?Boston?s approval process.?_ Remember:_ completely ignoring every known flaw, the MTA and City approved the entire proposal 6 years ago._ The project is now in its 14th year of being re-proposed, but only 3 of those years were spent in the community review process.

Since it was approved in 2003, the proposal spent the next 6 years failing due to the problems I?ve outlined for many years now:_ no developer screening, no competitive bidding, no financial disclosure, no verification of funding, no public audit, and public outrage that a project proposed and approved as subsidy-free would later request 19 subsidies totaling $605 million.

The original owner (Winn) sold it to the current owner (California) on 15 March 2006._ But the current owner cut off funding in September 2007, public subsidy applications were found to be fraudulent, government funding was disapproved and withdrawn in 2008, the proposal never met commercial lending criteria, and no banker ever loaned any money for it._

Had you read the 14 years and 15,000 pages of public records, you would already know all this.

Last summer, a future owner (Beal/Related) wanted to buy it for a pennies-on-the-dollar salvage price from the current owner._ But even for a fire-sale discount price, the potential buyer could not come up with any workable plan, even after scouring the project records for 8 months.

It?s true that today this proposal has no investor money, no government money, and no bank loans, but that?s entirely the owners? fault, no one else?s.
 
Re: Columbus Center

Yada, Yada, enjoy the ditch...
 
Re: Columbus Center

The project is now in its 14th year of being re-proposed, but only 3 of those years were spent in the community review process.

"Only" 3 years in community review process. I think anything more than 3 months in a community review process is excessive.


Had you read the 14 years and 15,000 pages of public records, you would already know all this.

I need to tell you. Over the last 2 years I have read the first 11 books of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. And f*ck if I can remember every last detail. And, as boring as that got in parts it's a helluva lot more interesting and entertaining of a read at over 10,000 pages compared to your 15,000. I'm glad you memorized them all. Hats off to you Rainman.
 
Re: Columbus Center

DarkFenX and KentXie, in hoping that nothing gets built, you have become the very same NIMBY of which you constantly complain.

For 14 years, the surrounding communities always wanted ? and still want ? a screened, qualified developer, who honors the Master Plan, with a proposal that survives public audit, to develop the air rights.

It?s not true that Columbus Center failed due to ?bitchery? ?fear-of-change?, or ?Boston?s approval process.?_ Remember:_ completely ignoring every known flaw, the MTA and City approved the entire proposal 6 years ago._ The project is now in its 14th year of being re-proposed, but only 3 of those years were spent in the community review process.

Since it was approved in 2003, the proposal spent the next 6 years failing due to the problems I?ve outlined for many years now:_ no developer screening, no competitive bidding, no financial disclosure, no verification of funding, no public audit, and public outrage that a project proposed and approved as subsidy-free would later request 19 subsidies totaling $605 million.

The original owner (Winn) sold it to the current owner (California) on 15 March 2006._ But the current owner cut off funding in September 2007, public subsidy applications were found to be fraudulent, government funding was disapproved and withdrawn in 2008, the proposal never met commercial lending criteria, and no banker ever loaned any money for it._

Had you read the 14 years and 15,000 pages of public records, you would already know all this.

Last summer, a future owner (Beal/Related) wanted to buy it for a pennies-on-the-dollar salvage price from the current owner._ But even for a fire-sale discount price, the potential buyer could not come up with any workable plan, even after scouring the project records for 8 months.

It?s true that today this proposal has no investor money, no government money, and no bank loans, but that?s entirely the owners? fault, no one else?s.
Don't call me a NIMBY, NIMBY. After seeing your involvement in the Prudential towers and how you complained that the Prudential towers will "illegally eliminate public space" and negatively impact the Copley Library, you have no credibility to me. The approval process itself is already flawed in that it requires a large amount of public meetings that are not always necessary and are often drawn out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top