Re: Columbus Center
For Seamus McFly, DarkFenX, KentXie, Kennedy, Patriots_1228, Jimbo Jones, JohnAKeith, CZSZ, and BostonSkyGuy . . .
. . . anything more than 3 months in a community review process is excessive.
. . . 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.
So, Seamus, you are certain of how much time is not needed, and you, DarkFenX/KentXie, think some meetings may not be needed, and some may be too long.
Well, it?s unfortunate that neither of you read the agreements between the Columbus Center owners and the mayor?s development staff, who sold to those owners all control over the public process, including the schedule.
_ The Columbus Center community review schedule was set, revised, and controlled by the project owners.
It?s equally unfortunate that neither of you attended the public meetings, and neither of you read the printed proposals.
_ If you had, you?d remember that the owners originally proposed to control land that they never controlled, and which could never become available to them.
_ That gaffe then led to:
_ a legal fight, a political fight, a project re-design, new environmental forms, new proposals, and additional public meetings.
It was the owners who forced themselves into multiple proposals, and who further extended their own public process schedule.
_ Your complaints about the quantity, duration, necessity, scheduling, and/or content of the public meetings have to be directed at the project owners.
_ It is they who caused the conditions of which you complain.
. . . I?m glad you memorized them all.
I did not memorize the 15,000+ pages of public records.
_ I never said that I did.
_ What I said is that I do have them, and that I did read them.
_ I urged every forum member to do the same, so that postings here would start with common, verifiable facts.
_ No one wanted to do that.
That is why so many forum messages start out, ?I imagine?, ?I heard?, ?I believe?, ?someone told me?, ?probably?, ?it seems?, ?other projects usually?, etcetera.
_ All that guessing forces the thread into more arguments over what the basic facts
might be, and fewer discussions about what the substantive issues
really are.
. . . I wonder what you think about public space.
Public open space is a Turnpike Master Plan requirement.
_ The developers violated the requirement by deleting the public space and inserting a 633-car garage in its place.
_ On this issue, the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee voted based on who owned the seat in which each member sat:
_ members sitting in the 7 seats owned by the developer voted to violate the Master Plan, and members sitting in the 4 seats democratically nominated by the communities voted not to violate.
. . . Regardless of the robbery of public space, do you wonder whether or not the project would actually help the area economically and socially?
Your question about ?help the area economically/socially? is too simplistic and undefined to be of any use.
Firstly, the robbery of public space can not be simply dismissed.
_ Why?
_ Because public space is a Master Plan requirement.
_ Once lost, it can never be replaced.
_ Robbery is robbery.
Secondly, the project was proposed ? and approved ? as subsidy-free, after which the owners attempted to obtain 19 subsidies totaling $605 million.
_ Except for people who are on ? or who hope to be on ? the development industry gravy train, no citizen has ever advocated for taxpayers to bail out this private developer by paying his costs and profits so that he doesn?t have to.
Thirdly, California?s managers testified to City Councilors on 10 May 2006 that they had designed the transportation corridor to be inside airtight, sealed tunnels so as to cleanse the community of noise, dirt, fumes, etcetera.
_ In fact, since 2003, their approved proposal has shown that not only were no airtight tunnels ever proposed, approved or imposed anywhere in the project, but there are multiple open-air cavity vents and multiple mechanized exhaust vents for moving all corridor air pollution from the tunnels into the homes and offices within the project and the surrounding community.
In summary:
_ deleted public space, fraudulent subsidy costs billed to the public, and broken promises for airtight tunnels do not constitute ?area-wide economic/social help.?
. . . 14,000 pages of Public Records? You read that much? Really?
No.
_ I read 15,000+ pages, not 14,000.
_ Over 14 years, that averages about 3 pages per day, so it?s not as hard to do as you?re worrying it might be.
Newspapers report that Jimbo Jones a.k.a. JohnAKeith is running for election as the state representative for the 3rd Suffolk district.
_ If that?s your idea of ?help on the way? then please explain exactly why electing you could help an $850 million proposal for which . . .
? investor-owners have withdrawn or denied all funding;
? government agencies have withdrawn or denied all funding;
? no banker ever loaned even one dollar;
? the project doesn?t meet commercial lending criteria; and
? the owners never finished the 6-week Financial Viability Study that they started last August.
And if the help you?re predicting is other than your own election, then please itemize what that help is, when it started or will start, and how it will resolve the above conditions.
. . . Ned . . . hasn?t noticed how ugly the gaping hole of an expressway running next to his house is.
Untrue.
_ I noticed the many unattractive characteristics of the corridor back in the late 1980s, and since 1993 have advocated to correct them.
_ However, success in the built environment requires that many conditions be met; visual improvement is only one criterion among many.
You and others here often throw the false ?either/or? choice of ?Columbus-Center-or-nothing? on the table, and insist that everyone must select one of the two.
_ But that dichotomy is binary thinking at its very simplest, and its very worst.
_ No one has to accept it, and no one does.
Even after ignoring all the options that are absurd or impossible, and even after eliminating more ideas through developer screening, competitive bidding, Master Plan compliance, and full financial disclosure, many options remain available.
_ Instead of thinking ?Columbus-Center-or-nothing-at-all? it helps to think ?Columbus-Center-or-anything-else?.
. . . what would be . . . acceptable . . . to be built here . . .
I endorse anything that fits what the Back Bay and South End communities have always stipulated:
? a screened developer,
? with the experience and ability to succeed,
? selected from among competitive bids,
? that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan,
? providing full financial disclosure, and
? mitigating the toxic air so that no one living or working along the corridor suffers increased public health risks.
But re-proposals from the former owner (Winn) failed all 6 of these criteria.
And re-proposals from the current owner (California) also failed all 6 of these criteria.
A re-proposal from the potential future owner (Beal/Related) was begun last August.
_ That buyer missed the 1st deadline in October, then missed the 2nd deadline in November, then missed the 3rd deadline in December, and then missed the 4th deadline in April.
_ But it does not matter if or when that re-proposal arrives, because Beal/Related have already confirmed that they will not allow:
_ developer screening; competitive bidding; Master Plan compliance; public audits of costs, revenue, subsidies and profits; or toxic air mitigation.
So, the past, present, and future owners of the Columbus Center company have not met ? and do not intend to meet ? the requirements outlined over the last 17 years by the Back Bay and South End communities.
With the gap between community requirements and developer intentions as wide as the interstate railway/roadway corridor itself, it?s no surprise that investors halted funding in September 2007, Governor Patrick halted funding in March 2008, and no bank ever loaned a single dollar.
