Re: Columbus Center
BRA lists this project as "Board Approved".
For this project, the BRA hasn?t updated its web site in 6 years.
_ It was approved on 10 July 2003, but over the next 6 years . . .
● The former owner (Winn) sold the proposal to new owners (California).
● The new owners refused to provide the required $295 million performance bonds.
● The new owners defaulted on original lease, and refused to sign an amended one.
● Most of the rent was never paid.
● Nothing was built.
● The only state legislator who ever supported it was arrested, was indicted, and then resigned.
● The only state employee protecting the developers was laid off, and his position eliminated.
● No commercial lender ever risked even one dollar on this proposal.
Both the city and State were ready and waiting to hand over millions in cash and tax breaks.
You?re 6 years out of date.
_ After promising to seek no subsidies at all, the owners quietly sought 19 subsidies worth $604 million.
_ Some public subsidies were disapproved immediately upon request; others languished for years (neither approved nor disapproved); and others were pending for years but ultimately pulled back.
_ But by early 2009, virtually all had been canceled, withdrawn, reassigned, or otherwise rescinded.
. . . the only things lacking on this project are a lot of steel and someone to pay for it.
By that logic, the only thing needed for time tunnel travel is (a) lots of time tunnel and (b) someone to pay for it.
_ For any venture that?s just a plan on paper, it can be said that the ?only things lacking? are resources and cash.
_ But on this proposal, the resources-and-cash gap remains enormous, and unfilled.
. . . where was this concern when tractors rolled onto the lot back in November of '07?
Since 1993, all concerns have been voiced, vetted, and recorded.
_ Each concern became a matter of public record as it arose.
_ Elected officials and government employees alike were aware of the slew of problems.
_ Every major issue has been mentioned in the 6 newspapers regularly covering this proposal.
. . . if someone started building an unauthorized skyscraper next door to me, you can be sure I wouldn't be screwing around on a message board . . .
No one started to build an unauthorized skyscraper.
_ If you don?t recall what happened, or if you need to know more, re-check the public records, which show:
● In September 2007, the new owner (California) stopped funding.
● From October 2007 through March 2008, the former owner (Winn) performed theatrically staged ?site preparation and pre-construction activity? to (a) retain investor-owner interest; and (b) attract commercial construction loans.
● Shrubs were pulled, fences went up, and gravel was moved left and right.
● Nothing was ever built.
● In April 2008, the owners jointly claimed to have spent $110 million.
. . . And I wouldn't be a lone voice of dissent.
With this project, no dissenter has ever been alone.
_ State legislators, government agencies, elected officials, radio broadcasters, television broadcasters, and weekly and daily newspapers all heard from many people about plenty of issues.
_ The most recent 2 years of articles are on-line in this forum, and the rest of the over 1,000 articles are available elsewhere.
_ Every public comment letter is also still available.
People who associate only with cheerleaders for BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) continue to say that they see no issues in this proposal, but that?s only because they haven?t asked the right questions.
