Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 746
Re: Columbus Center
It's not pertaining to the CC development in that your house has nothing to do with the development itself. Maybe you wanted a pm instead? I asked you because I know some people find giving away an address on the internet unsafe and thus felt that I should get your permission first. Thanks for the information anyways. I just wanted to see how close you are from the impact zone. Don't get so stingy.
Your post does raise a question though. What are your views over the other developments on air-right, specifically One Kenmore, and did you happen to have an opinion over the 50 story tower that was going to be built over Boylston but was rejected?
In addition, I want to reiterate what many forumers have said already and stop fighting with Ned. It's pretty much crying over spill milk. He isn't the reason why CC was stalled (though the method he uses to respond is irritating). The fact remains, it doesn't seem like this project will move forward in the near future. Also, the project we hear about now isn't the same as it is when it was first approved. We just have to wait for the new development team to see the changes they will make. Maybe they will make a better project. The problem is, when will we see it.
It's not pertaining to the CC development in that your house has nothing to do with the development itself. Maybe you wanted a pm instead? I asked you because I know some people find giving away an address on the internet unsafe and thus felt that I should get your permission first. Thanks for the information anyways. I just wanted to see how close you are from the impact zone. Don't get so stingy.
Your post does raise a question though. What are your views over the other developments on air-right, specifically One Kenmore, and did you happen to have an opinion over the 50 story tower that was going to be built over Boylston but was rejected?
In addition, I want to reiterate what many forumers have said already and stop fighting with Ned. It's pretty much crying over spill milk. He isn't the reason why CC was stalled (though the method he uses to respond is irritating). The fact remains, it doesn't seem like this project will move forward in the near future. Also, the project we hear about now isn't the same as it is when it was first approved. We just have to wait for the new development team to see the changes they will make. Maybe they will make a better project. The problem is, when will we see it.
Last edited:
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
The Copley Plaza that you ask about is a Beaux Arts style hotel, built in 1912, the year the Titanic sank._ Boston air rights weren?t even invented until 51 years later, so the Copley Plaza has nothing to do with this discussion._ Prudential Center was built in 1963._ Copley Place Mall, Copley Residences, and Copley Marriott were built in 1983._ In the 26 to 46 years that have passed since they were built, there have been significant changes in politics, economics, society, environment, and engineering.
No, you?re wrong. The rules did change, and they changed exactly as I said . . .
■ The Boston Zoning Code was first adopted in 1966.
■ The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act was first enacted in 1977.
■ Zoning Code Article 80 was first enacted in 1996.
■ The Turnpike Master Plan was adopted in 2000.
■ The Inspection Protocols for privately owned publicly tunnels used were adopted in 2008.
■ The Public Construction Reform law was adopted in 2008.
No, you?re wrong a 2nd time._ During the 46-year period that the current set of modern air rights regulations were being implemented, thousands of projects got built.
You?re wrong a 3rd time._ I never said Intercontinental Hotel is an air rights project, because it is not._ It is not affected by any air rights regulations._ I never said Fenway Center is not an air rights project, because it is._ It is subject to all current and future air rights regulations.
No, you?re wrong a 4th time._ The statutes, regulations, and policies applicable to modern (post-1986) air rights are not hand grenades created by me to shoot distractions at Columbus Center, or at any other project._ Those statutes, regulations, and policies were proposed, revised, and adopted by state legislators, governors, city councilors, municipal agencies, and state agencies, over 46 years, to carry out the will of the residents of Boston, and the citizens of the Commonwealth.
?How about x?? is not a question._ Consequently, answering it is not an option._ If you have a specific question, you can play again.
No, you?re wrong a 5th time, because death rates have been measured, and you?re wrong a 6th time, because you mean ?mortality? not ?lethality.?
The National Library of Medicine, at the U. S. National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, has thousands of studies about particulate matter air pollution._ Some of those studies refer to worsened health impacts when aggravated by shorter distances between sources and victims, and worsened impacts when aggravated by increased exposure over time.
These issues of distance and exposure time are critical to understanding the health harm, and to mitigating the environmental damage.
Therefore, on 18 June 2008, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University ? conveniently located one block east of Columbus Center! ? precisely to measure the time/space gradients of near-source air pollution on its victims.
When I moved next to the transportation corridor in 1990, I did not know about UFP air pollution._ Had I known, I would have moved several blocks farther south or north._ After getting educated about the problem, I decided ? temporarily, at least ? to make progress toward a solution, rather than aggravate the problem by ignoring it, fleeing it, and leaving it to those who know nothing at all about it, and to those who aren?t inclined to learn about it, and to developers who deny that it exists at all (despite 3 decades of scientific evidence)._ In the long run, I may, indeed, move farther away from it, where I can continue working toward a citywide solution, but in better health.
The Copley Plaza that you ask about is a Beaux Arts style hotel, built in 1912, the year the Titanic sank._ Boston air rights weren?t even invented until 51 years later, so the Copley Plaza has nothing to do with this discussion._ Prudential Center was built in 1963._ Copley Place Mall, Copley Residences, and Copley Marriott were built in 1983._ In the 26 to 46 years that have passed since they were built, there have been significant changes in politics, economics, society, environment, and engineering.
No, you?re wrong. The rules did change, and they changed exactly as I said . . .
■ The Boston Zoning Code was first adopted in 1966.
■ The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act was first enacted in 1977.
■ Zoning Code Article 80 was first enacted in 1996.
■ The Turnpike Master Plan was adopted in 2000.
■ The Inspection Protocols for privately owned publicly tunnels used were adopted in 2008.
■ The Public Construction Reform law was adopted in 2008.
No, you?re wrong a 2nd time._ During the 46-year period that the current set of modern air rights regulations were being implemented, thousands of projects got built.
You?re wrong a 3rd time._ I never said Intercontinental Hotel is an air rights project, because it is not._ It is not affected by any air rights regulations._ I never said Fenway Center is not an air rights project, because it is._ It is subject to all current and future air rights regulations.
No, you?re wrong a 4th time._ The statutes, regulations, and policies applicable to modern (post-1986) air rights are not hand grenades created by me to shoot distractions at Columbus Center, or at any other project._ Those statutes, regulations, and policies were proposed, revised, and adopted by state legislators, governors, city councilors, municipal agencies, and state agencies, over 46 years, to carry out the will of the residents of Boston, and the citizens of the Commonwealth.
?How about x?? is not a question._ Consequently, answering it is not an option._ If you have a specific question, you can play again.
No, you?re wrong a 5th time, because death rates have been measured, and you?re wrong a 6th time, because you mean ?mortality? not ?lethality.?
The National Library of Medicine, at the U. S. National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, has thousands of studies about particulate matter air pollution._ Some of those studies refer to worsened health impacts when aggravated by shorter distances between sources and victims, and worsened impacts when aggravated by increased exposure over time.
These issues of distance and exposure time are critical to understanding the health harm, and to mitigating the environmental damage.
Therefore, on 18 June 2008, the National Institutes of Health awarded a $2.5 million grant to Tufts University ? conveniently located one block east of Columbus Center! ? precisely to measure the time/space gradients of near-source air pollution on its victims.
When I moved next to the transportation corridor in 1990, I did not know about UFP air pollution._ Had I known, I would have moved several blocks farther south or north._ After getting educated about the problem, I decided ? temporarily, at least ? to make progress toward a solution, rather than aggravate the problem by ignoring it, fleeing it, and leaving it to those who know nothing at all about it, and to those who aren?t inclined to learn about it, and to developers who deny that it exists at all (despite 3 decades of scientific evidence)._ In the long run, I may, indeed, move farther away from it, where I can continue working toward a citywide solution, but in better health.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
First, 4 clarifications:
1. You?re asking about proposals, not completed developments.
2. You?re asking about the current Fenway Center, not the previous One Kenmore.
3. Boylston Square was unpopular, but it was never rejected._ The owners simply stopped work, said they might return, and then never did (not unlike Columbus Center).
4. These are all of Boston?s I-90 air rights properties . . .
■ Columbus Center proposal (parcels 16-17-18-19)
■ Fenway Center proposal (parcel 7)
■ Kenmore/Fenway proposal (parcels 8-9-10)
■ Boylston Square proposal (parcels 12-13-14-15)
■ Trinity proposal (parcels 12-13)
■ Weiner-ADG Scotia II proposal (parcels 12-14-15)
■ Carpenter proposal (parcels 14-15)
■ Chiofaro proposal (parcel 15)
■ not yet proposed (parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Boston has no other air rights properties.
Now, to answer the question._ Since 1993, I have advocated strongly for enclosing the entire I-90 corridor below, and developing it above, using:
? screened developers,
? with the experience and ability to succeed,
? selected from among competitive bids,
? that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan,
? who provide full financial disclosure,
? who pay fair market value for the property, and
? who mitigate the toxic air so that no one living or working along the corridor suffers increased public health risks.
My position has not changed change from one property to the next, from year to year, or based on where I live.
My long-running recommendation to replace the Columbus Center team with competitive bidders does not reflect any opposition to air rights development; on the contrary, it results from my dedication to successful air rights development._ The sooner that Columbus Center is evicted, the sooner that these parcels can be successfully developed.
Not exactly._ There are two reasons that the proposal stalled before anything was ever built._ I am responsible for pulling the public records and showing the public, the media, government, and lenders where to look, but the owners are responsible for their own actions ? all freely taken ? that led to the failures of all their re-proposals.
The developers doomed their own project by:
? donating $10,000 to a governor to get a no-bid, no-qualifications, no-disclosure deal;
? owning the majority of seats on the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee;
? paying an audio company to secretly record public meetings;
? editing the meeting minutes to shrink criticism and expand compliments;
? blocking citizens? recording of public meetings;
? paying for the ?independent? consultants who advised the public and the government;
? paying the consultants to halt their studies and never deliver their conclusions;
? testifying to City Council that the tunnels had air-tight seals that cleansed the community?s air;
? seeking public subsidies when profit is already $346 million without subsidies;
? proposing to be subsidy-free and then seeking 19 subsidies worth $605 million;
? filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming 100% financing that never existed;
? filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming public infrastructure that never existed;
? refusing to allow an independent public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies;
? deleting the required 2-acre public park and replacing it with a 633-car garage;
? converting the promised public parks into private condominium gardens;
? promising to own and operate the project for decades, but selling it before it was even built;
? defaulting on the lease 3 years ago;
? never getting state quality-control certification for the old tunnel deck design;
? never getting state quality-control certification for the new tunnel platform design;
? never buying the $295 million in state-required performance bonds;?
? insisting on a 10-year construction delay between the tunnels and the buildings;
? giving $10,000 to a legislator who the FBI tracked, recorded, and arrested for bribery;
etcetera.
Whether that?s so all depends on your definition of ?project.?
If by ?project? you mean ONLY the 6 buildings and 3 open spaces spread across 5 air rights properties, then nothing has changed._ Mayor Menino?s development staff approved the proposal on 10 July 2003._ No Notices-of-Project-Change were ever filed._ No Planned-Development-Area updates were ever filed._ The owners claim that their proposed buildings haven?t changed one iota.
But if by ?project? you mean the ENTIRE written proposal, then yes, much has changed, because . . .
? the proposed completion date of 2007 is now 2026;
? the owners now want taxpayers to pay costs and profits of their 100% privately owned project;
? the public parks have been privatized into condominium gardens;
? the tunnels must be certified by sworn, independent quality-control engineers;
. . . and so on.
There is no ?new development team.?
CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC is the current owner._ But they defaulted on their property lease 3 years ago, never qualified for commercial financing, and never built anything._ The proposal that they own has no commercial value, so they have no potential buyers.
It?s true that about one year ago The Beal Companies and The Related Companies wanted to snap up the failed project at a deep discount._ They did get permission to review the project records so they could decide what amount to offer._ Their 6-week study was completed on time, as planned, last fall._ Despite repeated promises to disclose their findings, the results apparently were too grim to release._ They missed all four of their self-imposed deadlines (15 October 2008, 15 November, 31 December, 8 April 2009)._ Nothing was ever published.
The forum cheerleaders who keep chanting ?it?s BRA-approved? haven?t yet realized that once a proposal becomes worthless, having a 6-year-old city approval is irrelevant, especially when 27 other approvals remain outstanding.
Once any project becomes worthless, old approvals have no value to anyone.
First, 4 clarifications:
1. You?re asking about proposals, not completed developments.
2. You?re asking about the current Fenway Center, not the previous One Kenmore.
3. Boylston Square was unpopular, but it was never rejected._ The owners simply stopped work, said they might return, and then never did (not unlike Columbus Center).
4. These are all of Boston?s I-90 air rights properties . . .
■ Columbus Center proposal (parcels 16-17-18-19)
■ Fenway Center proposal (parcel 7)
■ Kenmore/Fenway proposal (parcels 8-9-10)
■ Boylston Square proposal (parcels 12-13-14-15)
■ Trinity proposal (parcels 12-13)
■ Weiner-ADG Scotia II proposal (parcels 12-14-15)
■ Carpenter proposal (parcels 14-15)
■ Chiofaro proposal (parcel 15)
■ not yet proposed (parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Boston has no other air rights properties.
Now, to answer the question._ Since 1993, I have advocated strongly for enclosing the entire I-90 corridor below, and developing it above, using:
? screened developers,
? with the experience and ability to succeed,
? selected from among competitive bids,
? that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan,
? who provide full financial disclosure,
? who pay fair market value for the property, and
? who mitigate the toxic air so that no one living or working along the corridor suffers increased public health risks.
My position has not changed change from one property to the next, from year to year, or based on where I live.
My long-running recommendation to replace the Columbus Center team with competitive bidders does not reflect any opposition to air rights development; on the contrary, it results from my dedication to successful air rights development._ The sooner that Columbus Center is evicted, the sooner that these parcels can be successfully developed.
Not exactly._ There are two reasons that the proposal stalled before anything was ever built._ I am responsible for pulling the public records and showing the public, the media, government, and lenders where to look, but the owners are responsible for their own actions ? all freely taken ? that led to the failures of all their re-proposals.
The developers doomed their own project by:
? donating $10,000 to a governor to get a no-bid, no-qualifications, no-disclosure deal;
? owning the majority of seats on the Mayor?s Citizens Advisory Committee;
? paying an audio company to secretly record public meetings;
? editing the meeting minutes to shrink criticism and expand compliments;
? blocking citizens? recording of public meetings;
? paying for the ?independent? consultants who advised the public and the government;
? paying the consultants to halt their studies and never deliver their conclusions;
? testifying to City Council that the tunnels had air-tight seals that cleansed the community?s air;
? seeking public subsidies when profit is already $346 million without subsidies;
? proposing to be subsidy-free and then seeking 19 subsidies worth $605 million;
? filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming 100% financing that never existed;
? filing fraudulent subsidy requests claiming public infrastructure that never existed;
? refusing to allow an independent public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies;
? deleting the required 2-acre public park and replacing it with a 633-car garage;
? converting the promised public parks into private condominium gardens;
? promising to own and operate the project for decades, but selling it before it was even built;
? defaulting on the lease 3 years ago;
? never getting state quality-control certification for the old tunnel deck design;
? never getting state quality-control certification for the new tunnel platform design;
? never buying the $295 million in state-required performance bonds;?
? insisting on a 10-year construction delay between the tunnels and the buildings;
? giving $10,000 to a legislator who the FBI tracked, recorded, and arrested for bribery;
etcetera.
Whether that?s so all depends on your definition of ?project.?
If by ?project? you mean ONLY the 6 buildings and 3 open spaces spread across 5 air rights properties, then nothing has changed._ Mayor Menino?s development staff approved the proposal on 10 July 2003._ No Notices-of-Project-Change were ever filed._ No Planned-Development-Area updates were ever filed._ The owners claim that their proposed buildings haven?t changed one iota.
But if by ?project? you mean the ENTIRE written proposal, then yes, much has changed, because . . .
? the proposed completion date of 2007 is now 2026;
? the owners now want taxpayers to pay costs and profits of their 100% privately owned project;
? the public parks have been privatized into condominium gardens;
? the tunnels must be certified by sworn, independent quality-control engineers;
. . . and so on.
There is no ?new development team.?
CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC is the current owner._ But they defaulted on their property lease 3 years ago, never qualified for commercial financing, and never built anything._ The proposal that they own has no commercial value, so they have no potential buyers.
It?s true that about one year ago The Beal Companies and The Related Companies wanted to snap up the failed project at a deep discount._ They did get permission to review the project records so they could decide what amount to offer._ Their 6-week study was completed on time, as planned, last fall._ Despite repeated promises to disclose their findings, the results apparently were too grim to release._ They missed all four of their self-imposed deadlines (15 October 2008, 15 November, 31 December, 8 April 2009)._ Nothing was ever published.
The forum cheerleaders who keep chanting ?it?s BRA-approved? haven?t yet realized that once a proposal becomes worthless, having a 6-year-old city approval is irrelevant, especially when 27 other approvals remain outstanding.
Once any project becomes worthless, old approvals have no value to anyone.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
For Seamus McFly and others who still don?t know what UFP air pollution is, or who don?t know that the effects are deadly, or who deny the harm as part of their development industry gravy train business model, this week?s news will bring you up to date:
Cardiovascular mortality rates among people exposed to fine particles are twice as high as previously thought ? 24% instead of 12% ? say scientists at the University of Ottawa working for the Health Effects Institute, an organization established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency._ Their extended epidemiological analysis used data gathered from 500,000 people for up to 18 years._ The link between fine particles and cardiopulmonary disease was established two decades ago._ On 24 February 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared current EPA regulatory levels inadequate, and the Obama administration is now writing updated regulations.
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/earth/03soot.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
For Seamus McFly and others who still don?t know what UFP air pollution is, or who don?t know that the effects are deadly, or who deny the harm as part of their development industry gravy train business model, this week?s news will bring you up to date:
Cardiovascular mortality rates among people exposed to fine particles are twice as high as previously thought ? 24% instead of 12% ? say scientists at the University of Ottawa working for the Health Effects Institute, an organization established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency._ Their extended epidemiological analysis used data gathered from 500,000 people for up to 18 years._ The link between fine particles and cardiopulmonary disease was established two decades ago._ On 24 February 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared current EPA regulatory levels inadequate, and the Obama administration is now writing updated regulations.
www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/earth/03soot.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt
Last edited:
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 746
Re: Columbus Center
God must you respond in such an aggressive manner? (I'm talking about the bottom half of your post) You sound like a cranky old man. I was going to respond to your post to clarify what I mean but decided against it because you probably respond as though you are in a fight.
God must you respond in such an aggressive manner? (I'm talking about the bottom half of your post) You sound like a cranky old man. I was going to respond to your post to clarify what I mean but decided against it because you probably respond as though you are in a fight.
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,583
- Reaction score
- 2,605
Re: Columbus Center
^^^^^^^
KentXie, you haven't figured it out yet? Ned's off his medication!! It's the only thing that explains his rants!
^^^^^^^
KentXie, you haven't figured it out yet? Ned's off his medication!! It's the only thing that explains his rants!
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Columbus Center
Man you either really are Rainman (an idiot savant) or you have way too much time on your hands. When the hell did I even write that. I remember that I did, and still stick by it, but crimony I couldn't tell you when.
Now I have to ask you. Did you type that with a straight face or fully sober? No freakin way. If you haven't noticed, the groups of people you listed rarely if ever, evvvvveeerr have the wills of the residents or citizens in mind when they make their wacky harebrained decisions. Those people created and/or revised the statutes and regulations, but not with our best interests in mind. That may be just an opinion, but one with well over 46 years of history to back it up.
The little blurb on fine particles, and not Ultra Fine Particles to nit pick as you love to, does not answer the question as to what they are. ultra fine particles of what? Anything? Arsenic? Opium? Dunkin Donuts powdered donut dust?
I have not denied they are harmful and or contribute to health conditions. I have questioned whether there is a method to remove them, and offered up ideas. I have taken issue with the way you have pimped them out as a method to stop the insanity that is this terrible project (I like the project actually), since they are not regulated and as such should not be a major speed bump. If the EPA requires them, then they should be added. Do I think measured could or should be taken? Sure. But, add incentives if you want them. Not just say, I think they are bad and so does Ottawa, and until you get rid of them you can't build.
There must be incentives to go above and beyond. Conscience is one thing, but funding does not typically carry a large percentage for conscience.
If this industry is some kind of gravy train, I think I'm in coach, cuz there ain't no food service back here. This industry has been good to me, but it asks a lot in return, and then will send you out the door with no second thoughts.
I shall rest again from this thread for a while.
Man you either really are Rainman (an idiot savant) or you have way too much time on your hands. When the hell did I even write that. I remember that I did, and still stick by it, but crimony I couldn't tell you when.
Now I have to ask you. Did you type that with a straight face or fully sober? No freakin way. If you haven't noticed, the groups of people you listed rarely if ever, evvvvveeerr have the wills of the residents or citizens in mind when they make their wacky harebrained decisions. Those people created and/or revised the statutes and regulations, but not with our best interests in mind. That may be just an opinion, but one with well over 46 years of history to back it up.
The little blurb on fine particles, and not Ultra Fine Particles to nit pick as you love to, does not answer the question as to what they are. ultra fine particles of what? Anything? Arsenic? Opium? Dunkin Donuts powdered donut dust?
I have not denied they are harmful and or contribute to health conditions. I have questioned whether there is a method to remove them, and offered up ideas. I have taken issue with the way you have pimped them out as a method to stop the insanity that is this terrible project (I like the project actually), since they are not regulated and as such should not be a major speed bump. If the EPA requires them, then they should be added. Do I think measured could or should be taken? Sure. But, add incentives if you want them. Not just say, I think they are bad and so does Ottawa, and until you get rid of them you can't build.
There must be incentives to go above and beyond. Conscience is one thing, but funding does not typically carry a large percentage for conscience.
If this industry is some kind of gravy train, I think I'm in coach, cuz there ain't no food service back here. This industry has been good to me, but it asks a lot in return, and then will send you out the door with no second thoughts.
I shall rest again from this thread for a while.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 746
Re: Columbus Center
^^Forget it. It's impossible to have a civilized conversation with someone like him. His response is in the form of an argument. His attitude is that of a person who takes offense to statements that aren't even offensive. He believes that every statement we make have some underlying negative meaning to it. He's paranoid, cranky, and arrogant.
^^Forget it. It's impossible to have a civilized conversation with someone like him. His response is in the form of an argument. His attitude is that of a person who takes offense to statements that aren't even offensive. He believes that every statement we make have some underlying negative meaning to it. He's paranoid, cranky, and arrogant.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,619
- Reaction score
- 1,372
Re: Columbus Center
Ned Flaherty, time and time again in this thread, your claims of thousands of completed research studies demonstrating the hazard of UFPs have been debunked, but like a stubborn donkey you persist in resurrecting the claim. Your continued inability to distinguish between fine particles and ultra fine particles is bewildering. Your persistent failure to acknowledge, let alone accept, the ambient improvements that are resulting from controls, current and future, on fine particles implies that perhaps you prefer pollution over abatement, thus allowing you to continue flogging the prostrate horse of unabated particulate emissions. You seem oblivious to geographical and climatological differences, as if Los Angeles County and Suffolk County are mirror images of each other. You wear the mantle of pretense and prevarication well.
Ned Flaherty, time and time again in this thread, your claims of thousands of completed research studies demonstrating the hazard of UFPs have been debunked, but like a stubborn donkey you persist in resurrecting the claim. Your continued inability to distinguish between fine particles and ultra fine particles is bewildering. Your persistent failure to acknowledge, let alone accept, the ambient improvements that are resulting from controls, current and future, on fine particles implies that perhaps you prefer pollution over abatement, thus allowing you to continue flogging the prostrate horse of unabated particulate emissions. You seem oblivious to geographical and climatological differences, as if Los Angeles County and Suffolk County are mirror images of each other. You wear the mantle of pretense and prevarication well.
"What about you Helen, is there anything you'd like to talk about with the group?"
For some reason I think of this every time I read this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRKI-uFGj1g
For some reason I think of this every time I read this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRKI-uFGj1g
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Particulate matter air pollution is classified as Coarse, Fine, or Ultrafine, all of which are known to be harmful, in different ways._ In 1997, Congress authorized the U.S. EPA to create five university-based PMRCs (Particulate Matter Research Centers) to study exposure, dosimetry and modeling, toxicology, and epidemiology.
For nearly 2 years, I?ve been referring forum members to sources that provide chemical, medical, practical, and financial definitions for both health risks and mitigation._ You need to re-visit:
■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/)
■ Harvard University Particulate Center (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/epacenter/)
■ California Air Resources Board (http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm)
There is no need for you to take issue, because I never said that particulate matter air pollution is a method to stop Columbus Center.
Instead, I have always said that state officials should:_ (1) forbid the increase of PM air pollution for anyone working or living along the corridor; and (2) enforce the owners? testimony given to City Council that the tunnels underneath their 7-acre complex clean the community and are ? in their own words ? ?hermetically sealed? (i.e., airtight).
Untrue._ Coarse and fine particles are already nationally regulated._ Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations, are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth, and are about to be regulated by the federal government.
The incentives you are thinking of don?t truly work, because all incentives do is create a legal means of bribery by which developers avoid mitigation by buying their way out of having to do it._
Because the public health risks of particulate matter air pollution are proven to include birth defects, incurable illness (heart disease, lung disease, cancer), and premature mortality, it is bad public policy let developers buy their way out of compliance._ The only way to avoid the public health risk is to requiring developers to solve the problem, period.
Particulate matter air pollution is classified as Coarse, Fine, or Ultrafine, all of which are known to be harmful, in different ways._ In 1997, Congress authorized the U.S. EPA to create five university-based PMRCs (Particulate Matter Research Centers) to study exposure, dosimetry and modeling, toxicology, and epidemiology.
For nearly 2 years, I?ve been referring forum members to sources that provide chemical, medical, practical, and financial definitions for both health risks and mitigation._ You need to re-visit:
■ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/)
■ Harvard University Particulate Center (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/epacenter/)
■ California Air Resources Board (http://www.arb.ca.gov/homepage.htm)
There is no need for you to take issue, because I never said that particulate matter air pollution is a method to stop Columbus Center.
Instead, I have always said that state officials should:_ (1) forbid the increase of PM air pollution for anyone working or living along the corridor; and (2) enforce the owners? testimony given to City Council that the tunnels underneath their 7-acre complex clean the community and are ? in their own words ? ?hermetically sealed? (i.e., airtight).
Untrue._ Coarse and fine particles are already nationally regulated._ Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations, are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth, and are about to be regulated by the federal government.
The incentives you are thinking of don?t truly work, because all incentives do is create a legal means of bribery by which developers avoid mitigation by buying their way out of having to do it._
Because the public health risks of particulate matter air pollution are proven to include birth defects, incurable illness (heart disease, lung disease, cancer), and premature mortality, it is bad public policy let developers buy their way out of compliance._ The only way to avoid the public health risk is to requiring developers to solve the problem, period.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Untrue._ The thousands of studies I?ve referred to since 2007 cover all three sizes of particulate matter:_ coarse, fine, and ultrafine._ The older studies focus more on coarse and fine particles, and the newer ones more on ultrafine particles (UFPs)._ Those thousands of studies are found or referenced at the links I?ve provided multiple times._ No scientific or medical literature has been published that ?debunks? these studies.
You?re only bewildered because you don?t recall exactly what I said._ I?ve always recognized the differences between coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles, but all particulate matter is an outstanding issue ? in all three sizes ? at any air rights site in Boston.
Untrue._ I?ve always acknowledged that gradual, small improvements are occurring with fine particles._ But much more abatement of fine particles is possible, and much, much more abatement of ultrafine particles is possible, since there?s virtually no abatement now._ All in all, no one should be allowed to build anything that creates unnecessary, avoidable public health risks, and that?s what the latest Columbus Center and Fenway Center proposals would do, as currently written.
Untrue._ I never suggested that Massachusetts and California have the same weather._ In fact, I?ve always acknowledged just what the PM studies acknowledge:_ that location can affect the detailed statistics about who is affected, by which health risks, how soon, how badly, etcetera._ And that is one of the reasons that Massachusetts air rights developers now are required to quantify and mitigate the public health risks posed by their proposals.
Untrue._ The thousands of studies I?ve referred to since 2007 cover all three sizes of particulate matter:_ coarse, fine, and ultrafine._ The older studies focus more on coarse and fine particles, and the newer ones more on ultrafine particles (UFPs)._ Those thousands of studies are found or referenced at the links I?ve provided multiple times._ No scientific or medical literature has been published that ?debunks? these studies.
You?re only bewildered because you don?t recall exactly what I said._ I?ve always recognized the differences between coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles, but all particulate matter is an outstanding issue ? in all three sizes ? at any air rights site in Boston.
Untrue._ I?ve always acknowledged that gradual, small improvements are occurring with fine particles._ But much more abatement of fine particles is possible, and much, much more abatement of ultrafine particles is possible, since there?s virtually no abatement now._ All in all, no one should be allowed to build anything that creates unnecessary, avoidable public health risks, and that?s what the latest Columbus Center and Fenway Center proposals would do, as currently written.
Untrue._ I never suggested that Massachusetts and California have the same weather._ In fact, I?ve always acknowledged just what the PM studies acknowledge:_ that location can affect the detailed statistics about who is affected, by which health risks, how soon, how badly, etcetera._ And that is one of the reasons that Massachusetts air rights developers now are required to quantify and mitigate the public health risks posed by their proposals.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Rather than sulk away with hurt feelings, remember that this not a one-to-one letter-writing club where you get personal replies tailored only to you, but a public forum, where posts are tailored for the group, and thus have to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, where most of the forgetfulness, misunderstanding, and ignorance arises.
Whenever the facts that I report feel hard-hitting or overbearing to you, remember that I?m not writing to you personally, but to the entire membership, in which many know very little about this proposal, some don?t remember or understand what they read (or write), and a few occasionally drop in, but just to call names and quickly leave again.
Rather than sulk away with hurt feelings, remember that this not a one-to-one letter-writing club where you get personal replies tailored only to you, but a public forum, where posts are tailored for the group, and thus have to be aimed at the lowest common denominator, where most of the forgetfulness, misunderstanding, and ignorance arises.
Whenever the facts that I report feel hard-hitting or overbearing to you, remember that I?m not writing to you personally, but to the entire membership, in which many know very little about this proposal, some don?t remember or understand what they read (or write), and a few occasionally drop in, but just to call names and quickly leave again.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 746
Re: Columbus Center
Oh ok Ned. Oh and one more thing. Whether or not you are talking to me specifically or speaking to the whole forum, you still respond aggressively, act arrogant, and believe that everyone at the forum has a secret agenda in their statements.
Oh ok Ned. Oh and one more thing. Whether or not you are talking to me specifically or speaking to the whole forum, you still respond aggressively, act arrogant, and believe that everyone at the forum has a secret agenda in their statements.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 746
Re: Columbus Center
Just so you can understand something as complicated as this, I will make this as simple as possible.
Some locations ≠ Boston or Massachusetts
Starting to be regulated ≠ is regulated
Are about to be regulated ≠ is regulated
Key words in these statements are "Ultrafine particles are already regulated in some locations", "are starting to be regulated in the Commonwealth", and "are about to be regulated by the federal government."
Just so you can understand something as complicated as this, I will make this as simple as possible.
Some locations ≠ Boston or Massachusetts
Starting to be regulated ≠ is regulated
Are about to be regulated ≠ is regulated
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Columbus Center
Also means what I said was in fact true, and not untrue as you like to say.
I don't think you are quite understanding what an incentive is. Incentives are offered to the developer as a means to gain additional things. Just like you can get tax incentives for buying energy star products or replacing your windows. Incentives are only typically offered for things that are above and beyond what is required. They don't offer incentives for putting a roof on your building, but they may if you make it a reflective white roof (they won't but maybe a green roof.)
Example: Clark County (Las Vegas) offered new construction huge incentives for building LEED certified buildings. The Sand's Corp. caught wind of this and made sure their new Palazzo would be LEED Silver and reap the tax breaks and what not associated with it. Here is a quick little blurb on it
This was offered by the County/City as incentive to build greener buildings which is a big thing in the middle of a desert.
What this means is that incentives are offered to the developer to construct something that is better than required in some way. It's a way to say we know it's expensive, but it's the right thing to do so we're going to make it a little easier on you. Doing the right thing is not always in the bottom line, and good publicity does not equal guaranteed money in your pocket.
You mention bribery, but once again it's back to extortion if an entity tries to force added cost on the developer even though there is no legislation to back up the demands.
Tell me what I say is untrue when it is. If there are regulations in the city of Boston against UFP's, then I mispoke. But, if there is legislation in "some" places and none of them is Boston, then do not try to say I spoke incorrectly. Cutting and patching pieces of what is said around little blurbs that seems to debunk them, does not in fact debunk anything. That is called propaganda. And, to be taken seriously by an obviously educated forum as the bulk of this one would seem to be, you have to do much better.
Also means what I said was in fact true, and not untrue as you like to say.
I don't think you are quite understanding what an incentive is. Incentives are offered to the developer as a means to gain additional things. Just like you can get tax incentives for buying energy star products or replacing your windows. Incentives are only typically offered for things that are above and beyond what is required. They don't offer incentives for putting a roof on your building, but they may if you make it a reflective white roof (they won't but maybe a green roof.)
Example: Clark County (Las Vegas) offered new construction huge incentives for building LEED certified buildings. The Sand's Corp. caught wind of this and made sure their new Palazzo would be LEED Silver and reap the tax breaks and what not associated with it. Here is a quick little blurb on it
This was offered by the County/City as incentive to build greener buildings which is a big thing in the middle of a desert.
What this means is that incentives are offered to the developer to construct something that is better than required in some way. It's a way to say we know it's expensive, but it's the right thing to do so we're going to make it a little easier on you. Doing the right thing is not always in the bottom line, and good publicity does not equal guaranteed money in your pocket.
You mention bribery, but once again it's back to extortion if an entity tries to force added cost on the developer even though there is no legislation to back up the demands.
Tell me what I say is untrue when it is. If there are regulations in the city of Boston against UFP's, then I mispoke. But, if there is legislation in "some" places and none of them is Boston, then do not try to say I spoke incorrectly. Cutting and patching pieces of what is said around little blurbs that seems to debunk them, does not in fact debunk anything. That is called propaganda. And, to be taken seriously by an obviously educated forum as the bulk of this one would seem to be, you have to do much better.
- Status