Re: Columbus Center
. . . state officials acknowledge that there is an additional cost to building over air rights than over lands even thought they do not know the TDC.
No.
_ State officials don?t
acknowledge any extra cost.
_ They only
imply it.
_ Those two words mean very different things.
_ Officials can?t acknowledge extra cost until they can prove it, and they admit that they have no data that proves it.
_ So all they are able to do is imply it, and hope no one notices.
. . . your excessive focus on grammatical errors is not the purpose of the forum . . .
When you make an error that causes or perpetuates an argument, I do mention it, because that?s the only way for you to see how the argument started, and the only way to resolve the confusion.
_ I agree with you that grammar is not the purpose of the forum.
_ That?s why among hundreds of your errors, I mention only the ones that are unavoidable.
How about you start naming the officials you said you presented to . . .
At the city, state, and federal levels, I coordinate with agency staff members, elected officials, and developers.
_ So that I can continue doing that, I never speak for them, and I never name them; instead, I let them make their own announcements whenever they are ready.
_ But this forum isn?t about who I speak with or what we say to each other; it?s about discussions of facts from public records about the built environment.
_ Everything I predicted for Columbus Center is gradually coming true, and is appearing in public records, and is getting reported.
_ Be patient.
Why don't you post the public record here since you have so much time to write long posts?
Good question.
_ There are 3 reasons that the public records of Columbus Center are not posted here.
#1:_ Software ? The forum software is designed and configured for a small number of people to make quick posts that contain short comments; it has no features to scan, store, index, and search 14 years worth of public records.
#2:_ Staff ? Even if the forum purchased appropriate software, no forum member is ready, willing and able to manage the 16,000 pages, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.
#3:_ Venue ? If the lobbyists, hobbyists, students, brokers, lawyers, architects, laborers, etc. from this forum want all public records on-line, then they need to either get government agencies to do that, or else provide the funding and the staffing to do that themselves.
_ No other forum member has pulled the records for Columbus Center, or shown any appreciation of the value in doing that, so any such effort would probably be wasted here.
_ I will continue giving government employees, elected officials, and journalists all the public records that they need.
_ But I am not willing to undertake such a massive effort for such a small forum where the owner/operator has no software and where the members have no interest.
. . . Ned, even though you may be able to be quoted in small biased newspapers, you are hardly influential.
Untrue.
_ I contribute to, am quoted in, and/or write for media outlets of all sizes and persuasions, not just a ?small biased? group as you wrote.
_ The media outlets that have relied on me for information include:
Banker & Tradesman, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, South End News, Back Bay Sun, Boston Courant, Fenway News, WFXT-25, WHDH-5, WBZ-4, WBUR-90.9, and others.
_ But my sphere of influence is really elsewhere; the media just report the results of decisions, not how they get made.
. . . I doubt any of the developers listen to the nonsense you talk about because if they did, they would have considered about addressing the pollution.
Wrong, on all 3 counts.
_ Firstly, only the development industry still treats the public health risk of exposure to particulate matter as ?nonsense? like you do.
_ Elsewhere, it?s accepted science.
_ Secondly, developers listen far more intently than you realize; but they don?t admit it so they can publicly stay in denial as long as possible.
_ Thirdly, developers have known about particulate matter health risks for years, but they will continue procrastinating as long as the public lets them, because they fear that doing something might reduce profits.
. . . Yet from all the articles, I found barely anything about the UFP poisoning you are talking about and how the developers are going to deal with it . . .
If you aren?t finding information about particulate matter, then you need better search skills, you need better search tools, or you simply aren?t trying hard enough.
_ At city, state, and federal levels, it is becoming more regulated, not less.
_ Also, it is becoming more publicized.
_ Be patient, and you will eventually hear what has happened on this topic; however, so long as you get your news from this forum or from developers (who are always the last to talk about public health risks and mitigation), then you?ll always be the last to find out.
. . . You are a figurehead, nothing more . . .
Forum members don?t know who I talk to, what we say, or what gets decided, and will never know those things, so it is impossible for any forum member to accurately say what impacts I have, or when I have them.
_ But you should never interpret your lack of knowledge about what I do as proof that nothing is happening.
I post news here only after it?s in public records and only after it?s announced by somebody else, so this forum is the last place for you to find out what?s going on.
But I was the first to notify the media:
. . . that the developer paid the BRA to secretly record the public meetings (2003).
. . . that a project manager had fraudulent deals for many years (2004).
. . . that managers of this ?subsidy-free? proposal were seeking enormous subsidies (2005).
. . . that California bought control of the project 3.5 years ago (2006).
. . . that the claimed bank loans were never issued, approved, or even applied for (2007).
. . . that California never bought the required performance bonds (2008).
. . . that Mass. requires Fenway Center to itemize and mitigate public health risks (2008).
Most of the news I uncover is reported without my name; my name gets mentioned only when I am part of the news, not just for discovering news.
_ But I am far more involved than just the ?figurehead? that you imagine.
. . . And one more thing. You only post in one thread . . . You are only able to contribute in one thread . . .
Untrue.
_ You obviously don?t know that I also post in other threads such as International Hotel and Fenway Center.
_ But you?re distracted by your own illogical assumption that the number of threads someone posts in is somehow important.
_ It isn?t.
_ Quantity is unrelated (in either direction) to quality.
_ Quality stands alone.
. . . I'm not here to lobby like you . . . You are hardly productive in this forum.
Untrue, on both counts.
_ I am not here to lobby.
_ I joined when I saw that most forum members were posting incorrect information, and posting lots of rumors, but rarely posting any sources for their assumptions.
_ I joined only to post new facts from government records for public discussion.
Many members do not like those facts, and a few members do not understand them, and no forum members are willing or able to pull the same public records themselves.
_ But I have provided the forum with more facts from more public records than anyone else, so if you want to label someone as unproductive, skip me, and start with the BEEARN (Build Everything, Everywhere, All-the-time, Right-away, No-matter-what) cheerleaders.
