Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
Re: Columbus Center
I don't know who the f&^% "Ned" is.
But why the hell do we have to ban him?
Let him speak, and TOTALLY ignore him!
What else can he do?
Stop Boston?!
I DON'T THINK SO!
P.S.
Ned: stay in your apt and love it, but that's ALL you will be ABLE to do!
I don't know who the f&^% "Ned" is.
But why the hell do we have to ban him?
Let him speak, and TOTALLY ignore him!
What else can he do?
Stop Boston?!
I DON'T THINK SO!
P.S.
Ned: stay in your apt and love it, but that's ALL you will be ABLE to do!
blade_bltz
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
WHERE is the Rifleman and WHAT have you DONE with him?
WHERE is the Rifleman and WHAT have you DONE with him?
type001
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,731
- Reaction score
- 233
Re: Columbus Center
Of course I would never want anyone banned for disagreeing. It seemed that most of you missed my reasoning that I wrote in my previous post. Ned is really not debating anymore. He is taunting those who disagree with him by posting these articles and adding nothing. And as someone had mentioned the Cake song, it seems he is taunting because he is a sore loser.That is why I suggested the banning.
Of course I would never want anyone banned for disagreeing. It seemed that most of you missed my reasoning that I wrote in my previous post. Ned is really not debating anymore. He is taunting those who disagree with him by posting these articles and adding nothing. And as someone had mentioned the Cake song, it seems he is taunting because he is a sore loser.That is why I suggested the banning.
Re: Columbus Center
It's in a state of limbo...the developers have been dragging their feet. And with the economic collapse the project doesn't look likely to be built. Either way, Ned is clearly obsessed, but his presence on the forum is a valuable lesson that no project should dominate one's social life, even if it is next to your "luxury" building.
It's in a state of limbo...the developers have been dragging their feet. And with the economic collapse the project doesn't look likely to be built. Either way, Ned is clearly obsessed, but his presence on the forum is a valuable lesson that no project should dominate one's social life, even if it is next to your "luxury" building.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
No._ Simply increasing the population of a given area does not, in and of itself, change the motivation of people within that area to resolve an issue.
It is only through education about a problem that people become motivated to solve it._ Both corridors (I-93 & I-90) are already heavily populated with people who work and live within a few feet of the ultrafine particulate matter that constitutes the worst air pollution known._ But few people care about this issue yet, because few people know about it._ So merely increasing the uninformed population would accomplish nothing.
Eliminating this problem along both corridors requires educating the population, and then motivating people to insist that the public health risks be (1) quantified and (2) mitigated.
Fortunately, last year the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs adopted a policy to quantify and mitigate the public health risks._ It was applied to Fenway Center?s air rights proposal on 14 November 2008.
No._ Simply increasing the population of a given area does not, in and of itself, change the motivation of people within that area to resolve an issue.
It is only through education about a problem that people become motivated to solve it._ Both corridors (I-93 & I-90) are already heavily populated with people who work and live within a few feet of the ultrafine particulate matter that constitutes the worst air pollution known._ But few people care about this issue yet, because few people know about it._ So merely increasing the uninformed population would accomplish nothing.
Eliminating this problem along both corridors requires educating the population, and then motivating people to insist that the public health risks be (1) quantified and (2) mitigated.
Fortunately, last year the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs adopted a policy to quantify and mitigate the public health risks._ It was applied to Fenway Center?s air rights proposal on 14 November 2008.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
No, it?s not approved._ An early conceptual proposal was partly ? but never fully ? approved, it is still un-financed, and last year it was replaced by a new proposal that is both un-approved and un-financed._
For forum members who can?t, won?t, or haven?t read the public records, here are the facts.
Conceptual proposal was only partly approved, never fully approved. ? As explained in post #1427 on 29 September 2008, the 3,400-page lease lists 9 approvals that were obtained, but also lists 27 more approvals that were not obtained._ From among the 27 missing approvals, here are 4 of the most glaring.
? MTA never gave permission to start building construction.
? MTA never gave permission to start tunnel construction.
? California never delivered $295 million in performance bonds to MTA?s satisfaction.
? MTA canceled the proposed lease amendment in March 2008, which revived California?s multi-year dispute over the defaulted lease.
Financial proposal was never approved. ? It?s true that Mayor Menino ? after asking for and getting $50,000 from the development team ? gave conceptual approval to one of the earlier proposals, 6 years ago on 10 July 2003._ But even that partially approved conceptual proposal was rejected by every commercial lender ever approached, and the owner-investors (California pension plan) cut off funding in September 2007, and pending state subsidies were rescinded in March 2008._ So even the partially approved proposal still was rejected by all 3 financing sources: lenders, government, and owners.
New conceptual proposal was never published. ? On 17 September 2008, Beal attorney Peter Spellios, under contract to California, announced to City officials and community delegates that he had rescued the proposal from financial ruin by replacing the previously approved ?deck-based? tunnel designs with cheaper, less durable ?platform-based? tunnel designs._ But . . .
? Beal never published California?s latest conceptual proposal.
? No one wants to finance California?s latest proposal ? not even California.
? MTA never approved the new platform-based tunnel design.
? The independent, sworn engineers ? who oversee tunnel design and construction for the Commonwealth ? never approved the new platform-based tunnel design.
In summary, an early conceptual proposal was never financed, and only partly approved, and the latest proposal remains un-published, un-financed, and un-approved._ Without full approval of both the conceptual and the financial proposals, the venture remains, as always, un-approved._ Arguing otherwise, even in upper case letters, doesn?t change any of those facts.
Citizens, journalists, and cheer-leaders who read and repeat only the developer?s press releases are easily fooled into thinking that the entire proposal was fully approved._ But people who read the public records know that not once in 14 years was this proposal ever fully approved.
No, it?s not approved._ An early conceptual proposal was partly ? but never fully ? approved, it is still un-financed, and last year it was replaced by a new proposal that is both un-approved and un-financed._
For forum members who can?t, won?t, or haven?t read the public records, here are the facts.
Conceptual proposal was only partly approved, never fully approved. ? As explained in post #1427 on 29 September 2008, the 3,400-page lease lists 9 approvals that were obtained, but also lists 27 more approvals that were not obtained._ From among the 27 missing approvals, here are 4 of the most glaring.
? MTA never gave permission to start building construction.
? MTA never gave permission to start tunnel construction.
? California never delivered $295 million in performance bonds to MTA?s satisfaction.
? MTA canceled the proposed lease amendment in March 2008, which revived California?s multi-year dispute over the defaulted lease.
Financial proposal was never approved. ? It?s true that Mayor Menino ? after asking for and getting $50,000 from the development team ? gave conceptual approval to one of the earlier proposals, 6 years ago on 10 July 2003._ But even that partially approved conceptual proposal was rejected by every commercial lender ever approached, and the owner-investors (California pension plan) cut off funding in September 2007, and pending state subsidies were rescinded in March 2008._ So even the partially approved proposal still was rejected by all 3 financing sources: lenders, government, and owners.
New conceptual proposal was never published. ? On 17 September 2008, Beal attorney Peter Spellios, under contract to California, announced to City officials and community delegates that he had rescued the proposal from financial ruin by replacing the previously approved ?deck-based? tunnel designs with cheaper, less durable ?platform-based? tunnel designs._ But . . .
? Beal never published California?s latest conceptual proposal.
? No one wants to finance California?s latest proposal ? not even California.
? MTA never approved the new platform-based tunnel design.
? The independent, sworn engineers ? who oversee tunnel design and construction for the Commonwealth ? never approved the new platform-based tunnel design.
In summary, an early conceptual proposal was never financed, and only partly approved, and the latest proposal remains un-published, un-financed, and un-approved._ Without full approval of both the conceptual and the financial proposals, the venture remains, as always, un-approved._ Arguing otherwise, even in upper case letters, doesn?t change any of those facts.
Citizens, journalists, and cheer-leaders who read and repeat only the developer?s press releases are easily fooled into thinking that the entire proposal was fully approved._ But people who read the public records know that not once in 14 years was this proposal ever fully approved.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The project is approved.
With financing in place, the cranes could start tomorrow.
Your point seems to be "the financing isn't approved" and to that point we are in agreement.
The project is approved.
With financing in place, the cranes could start tomorrow.
Your point seems to be "the financing isn't approved" and to that point we are in agreement.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 335
Re: Columbus Center
Isn't it a shame that it's taken over thirty years for the state to begin to engage in discussions about an epidemiological and air quality study for the communities surrounding Logan Airport.
Your community seems to have gotten action a bit quicker. I wonder why?
Isn't it a shame that it's taken over thirty years for the state to begin to engage in discussions about an epidemiological and air quality study for the communities surrounding Logan Airport.
Your community seems to have gotten action a bit quicker. I wonder why?
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The 2003 proposal was never fully approved, and the 2008 proposal ? the only one that California now wants to pursue ? was never approved at all.
The 2003 proposal was never fully approved, and the 2008 proposal ? the only one that California now wants to pursue ? was never approved at all.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Activism efforts are cumulative._ To say that ?my community got action? isn?t really correct._ Everyone who has worked on this for the past few decades contributed, one way or another, to the eventual progress._ Had Logan neighbors not done all their clamoring, progress would have taken even longer._ And the results are not limited to my community; it?s just that the first place they were used was here._ The new policy applies statewide, which is good for everyone.
Activism efforts are cumulative._ To say that ?my community got action? isn?t really correct._ Everyone who has worked on this for the past few decades contributed, one way or another, to the eventual progress._ Had Logan neighbors not done all their clamoring, progress would have taken even longer._ And the results are not limited to my community; it?s just that the first place they were used was here._ The new policy applies statewide, which is good for everyone.
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The only hope for derailing the approved Columbus Center development at this point is that when Beal comes back with his "cost savings" plan, you can prove that the changes are so significant, that it has to reset all the current approvals in place.
With the approvals process re-opened (it's closed now, as this project is approved) this opens the door for the new Together-We-Can Yahoos to get their stab at this UFP nonsense. With the Romney business administration out of the picture, you'll now be dealing with people more on your level.
So that's the cracked door that you may be able to wedge yourself into in hopes of killing the project.
Beal is shrewd. He won't propose changes big enough to trigger this chain of events, but it is your only hope.
Since this project has already been approved.
The only hope for derailing the approved Columbus Center development at this point is that when Beal comes back with his "cost savings" plan, you can prove that the changes are so significant, that it has to reset all the current approvals in place.
With the approvals process re-opened (it's closed now, as this project is approved) this opens the door for the new Together-We-Can Yahoos to get their stab at this UFP nonsense. With the Romney business administration out of the picture, you'll now be dealing with people more on your level.
So that's the cracked door that you may be able to wedge yourself into in hopes of killing the project.
Beal is shrewd. He won't propose changes big enough to trigger this chain of events, but it is your only hope.
Since this project has already been approved.
Re: Columbus Center
Another project stalled because of ... financing.
Approved and financing. Different things.
My boss can approve me to go on a jaunt to Falling Water, but if there's no funding in our travel account, it's a moot point.
Another project stalled because of ... financing.
Approved and financing. Different things.
My boss can approve me to go on a jaunt to Falling Water, but if there's no funding in our travel account, it's a moot point.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Columbus Center
The project, no matter what Ned said, was approved. Had finance been secured since the beginning, CC would have gone up with nobody preventing it from doing so. Maybe the loans that Ned have told us about earlier may not have been approved but that is not part of a building approval process. If CC were to be able to receive funding other than loans that weren't approved, then CC would be going up.
Just ask Ned, "Why was the construction of the deck over the MassPike for the CC project halted last year?"
The project, no matter what Ned said, was approved. Had finance been secured since the beginning, CC would have gone up with nobody preventing it from doing so. Maybe the loans that Ned have told us about earlier may not have been approved but that is not part of a building approval process. If CC were to be able to receive funding other than loans that weren't approved, then CC would be going up.
Just ask Ned, "Why was the construction of the deck over the MassPike for the CC project halted last year?"
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: Columbus Center
That's what I'm saying. Regardless of whether or not Columbus Center is approved, financing isn't there due to many factors, one certainly being the struggle they have faced to get anything at all approved.
That's what I'm saying. Regardless of whether or not Columbus Center is approved, financing isn't there due to many factors, one certainly being the struggle they have faced to get anything at all approved.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
The approvals that Ned is talking about are CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS, like if they want to build the next floor, or start with the tunnel, or blah blah blah, they get a permit, which is almost always a safety formality. I don't see how it will be any different with this.
The approvals that Ned is talking about are CONSTRUCTION APPROVALS, like if they want to build the next floor, or start with the tunnel, or blah blah blah, they get a permit, which is almost always a safety formality. I don't see how it will be any different with this.
- Status