palindrome
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,267
- Reaction score
- 118
Re: Columbus Center
Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay
- Thread starter philip
- Start date
- Status
Patriots_1228
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Columbus Center
Must suck to live in the South End, between Ned and BostonBred.....
Must suck to live in the South End, between Ned and BostonBred.....
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
No, of course you never heard this figure, because there?s no such thing as ?the subsidy.?_ Columbus Center?s owners split their requests into 19 subsidies across city, state, and federal agencies, which helps hide the total loss to taxpayers._ So far, no government agency or news outlet has ever reported the grand total.
For most of 2009, the 14-year tally has sat at 19 different requests totaling $605 million.
The Beal Companies and The Related Companies brag that their specialty is getting their private projects paid for with public dollars._ Since taking control of the proposal over one year ago, they have continued ?exploring all options? (Boston Courant, 23 January 2009), which means trying to get taxpayers to fund their costs and profits._ The reason they never published the Financial Viability Review that they promised for 15 October 2008, then 15 November, then 31 December, then 8 April 2009, is that the project is fiscally distressed and they need more taxpayer dollars before it can be viable.
The subsidies are of two major types:_ loans repaid within 50 years (tax-free bond loans, low-interest construction loans), and gifts never repaid at all (property discounts, property tax breaks, luxury housing grants, state income tax breaks, utility grants, work tax credits, equipment write-offs, wage tax credits, energy study grants, community development tax credits, and economic stimulus grants).
The owners have never disclosed the total public money that they are seeking, from whom, and for what purposes._ So 19 subsidies worth $605 million is only an interim tally. It is rising.
No, of course you never heard this figure, because there?s no such thing as ?the subsidy.?_ Columbus Center?s owners split their requests into 19 subsidies across city, state, and federal agencies, which helps hide the total loss to taxpayers._ So far, no government agency or news outlet has ever reported the grand total.
For most of 2009, the 14-year tally has sat at 19 different requests totaling $605 million.
The Beal Companies and The Related Companies brag that their specialty is getting their private projects paid for with public dollars._ Since taking control of the proposal over one year ago, they have continued ?exploring all options? (Boston Courant, 23 January 2009), which means trying to get taxpayers to fund their costs and profits._ The reason they never published the Financial Viability Review that they promised for 15 October 2008, then 15 November, then 31 December, then 8 April 2009, is that the project is fiscally distressed and they need more taxpayer dollars before it can be viable.
The subsidies are of two major types:_ loans repaid within 50 years (tax-free bond loans, low-interest construction loans), and gifts never repaid at all (property discounts, property tax breaks, luxury housing grants, state income tax breaks, utility grants, work tax credits, equipment write-offs, wage tax credits, energy study grants, community development tax credits, and economic stimulus grants).
The owners have never disclosed the total public money that they are seeking, from whom, and for what purposes._ So 19 subsidies worth $605 million is only an interim tally. It is rising.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]Are corporate tax breaks breaking the bank?[/size]
Forum members Tocoto, Bobby Digital, Barbaric Manchurian, Czsz, Denatlanta, DarkFenX, Stellarfun, WHighlander, Palindrome, AWood91, Pelhamhall, John A. Keith, Suffolk83, Tobyjug, Kennedy, Seamus McFly, and Jass have collectively endorsed the building of Columbus Center, immediately, unfettered, and regardless of cost, some arguing that it doesn?t matter how many decades taxpayers would be burdened paying off the bonds, loans, grants, income tax breaks, and property tax breaks needed to create the temporary jobs for the out-of-state construction workers.
The following article explains how that argument fails, who usually makes it, and why, and who usually falls for it, and why.
[size=+2]Are corporate tax breaks breaking the bank?[/size]
South End News ? Shirley Kressel ? August 31, 2009
Greg LeRoy?s 2005 book, The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation, should be required reading for every public official, and every taxpayer, voter and citizen. Providing detailed documentation, LeRoy exposes the ?job creation? game, in which ruthless corporations shake down our governments, demanding public subsidies to do things they?d do anyway, and politicians eagerly hand over these so-called ?business incentives? so they can claim credit for doing things the market would do anyway. American municipalities lose over $50 billion a year in this corporate welfare sink. Yet, these giveaways ?create? or ?retain? few living-wage jobs, and often, job numbers decrease.
Back in 1979, Robert Goodman wrote a book, The Last Entrepreneurs: America?s Regional Wars for Jobs and Dollars, showing how government competition to lure companies with subsidies had replaced private-sector corporate competition. This race to the bottom, as Goodman warned and LeRoy documents, has resulted in the loss of an economically secure middle-class, a degraded environment, wholesale deregulation of private corporations, a loss of transparency and public accountability in disposition of public resources, and a chronic shortage of funding for the public goods and services, such as transportation infrastructure and public education, that truly do attract and support businesses-as well as residents.
How has such a poisonous ideology flourished to the point where no politician dares to speak against it? As LeRoy explains, it is rooted in urban ?white flight? and the prevalent image of abandoned, disadvantaged ?inner cities.? The perception of urban ?blight? has been used to justify a wholesale giveaway of our public money, land and laws to big corporations, by promising jobs to workers and glamorous legacies to self-serving public officials. Since then, the exportation of manufacturing and even white-collar jobs to underdeveloped countries with very low wages and no protections for either workers or the environment has broadened the job shortage nationally, so that the promise of employment is a magic key to the government coffers.
LeRoy, the founder of Good Jobs First, an organization that aims to promote corporate and government accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families, documents the history of the great American jobs scam, starting in the 1930s with the Fantus Factory Locating Service, a consulting company advising factories about site location based on its analysis of local transportation, labor and materials markets, and taxes. From this modest start, a huge industry has grown for guiding corporations in inveigling and intimidating cities and states to compete with each other in the hopes of ?landing the business? and ?creating jobs.?
The book exposes the array of arcane subsidy schemes devised to transfer public assets to corporations, including zoning exemptions, eminent domain takings, regulatory waivers, tax-free loans, outright cash grants, property and income tax waivers of various sorts, free public land and site preparation, publicly paid utility services, customized public works, privatized public jobs, publicly subsidized health insurance, etc. Most of them are made invisible to the average citizen and even to the seasoned investigator. They are typically structured to shield politicians from public accountability as they wreck communities to create ?business-friendly? climates. It?s an astounding narrative of brazen lying and economic thuggery, and yet, the trend has not only continued, but accelerated-regardless of political party.
Business leaders, as LeRoy quotes them, are well aware that public subsidies are not important factors in their location and hiring decisions. Paul O?Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and President George W. Bush?s first Secretary of the Treasury, is cited thus: ?[As a businessman] I never made an investment decision based on the Tax Code...f you are giving money away I will take it. If you want to give me inducements for something I am going to do anyway, I will take it. But good business people do not do things because of inducements, they do it because they can see that they are going to be able to earn the cost of capital out of their own intelligence and organization of resources.?
Many politicians also know these deals are not ?incentives? but unnecessary giveaways. LeRoy quotes New York City?s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who inherited Rudolph Giuliani?s financial crisis, which was caused in part by the latter?s years of resource-sapping ?job retention? deals; Bloomberg renounced a $14 million package granted to his own company, saying, ?Any company that makes a decision as to where they are going to be based on the tax rate is a company that won?t be around very long ... If you?re down to that incremental margin you don?t have a business.?
Governor Deval Patrick, when he was running for office, acknowledged that, ?A business that makes a decision on the basis of a tax break alone, that?s a business that?s on its way out of business.? But when asked what governors and legislatures should do to promote business, Patrick said, ?This notion that it takes a tax break, a tax concession, to attract a business ? you want that in your box as a closer.? This was his ?fine print,? to leave him room for politically self-aggrandizing business subsidies, and indeed, the state corporate welfare empire has only grown under Patrick. Instead of keeping his promise to close a set of corporate loopholes that cost Massachusetts $500 million annually, he left half of them in place and cut the corporate tax rate, to leave us with no net benefit, arguing, along with our benighted legislators, that incentives are needed to attract industries. The result will be a permanent overall tax revenue loss, and the corporations will simply devise new loopholes to make up for the few he closed.
Finally, LeRoy provides a dozen recommendations for reform to reverse this self-destructive policy and manage private growth and public finances equitably and efficiently. Reform #1, of course, is ?Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure? ? transparency, a commodity in short supply at the state and municipal level.
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=city_streets&sc2=&sc3=&id=95787
[size=+2]Are corporate tax breaks breaking the bank?[/size]
Forum members Tocoto, Bobby Digital, Barbaric Manchurian, Czsz, Denatlanta, DarkFenX, Stellarfun, WHighlander, Palindrome, AWood91, Pelhamhall, John A. Keith, Suffolk83, Tobyjug, Kennedy, Seamus McFly, and Jass have collectively endorsed the building of Columbus Center, immediately, unfettered, and regardless of cost, some arguing that it doesn?t matter how many decades taxpayers would be burdened paying off the bonds, loans, grants, income tax breaks, and property tax breaks needed to create the temporary jobs for the out-of-state construction workers.
The following article explains how that argument fails, who usually makes it, and why, and who usually falls for it, and why.
[size=+2]Are corporate tax breaks breaking the bank?[/size]
South End News ? Shirley Kressel ? August 31, 2009
Greg LeRoy?s 2005 book, The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation, should be required reading for every public official, and every taxpayer, voter and citizen. Providing detailed documentation, LeRoy exposes the ?job creation? game, in which ruthless corporations shake down our governments, demanding public subsidies to do things they?d do anyway, and politicians eagerly hand over these so-called ?business incentives? so they can claim credit for doing things the market would do anyway. American municipalities lose over $50 billion a year in this corporate welfare sink. Yet, these giveaways ?create? or ?retain? few living-wage jobs, and often, job numbers decrease.
Back in 1979, Robert Goodman wrote a book, The Last Entrepreneurs: America?s Regional Wars for Jobs and Dollars, showing how government competition to lure companies with subsidies had replaced private-sector corporate competition. This race to the bottom, as Goodman warned and LeRoy documents, has resulted in the loss of an economically secure middle-class, a degraded environment, wholesale deregulation of private corporations, a loss of transparency and public accountability in disposition of public resources, and a chronic shortage of funding for the public goods and services, such as transportation infrastructure and public education, that truly do attract and support businesses-as well as residents.
How has such a poisonous ideology flourished to the point where no politician dares to speak against it? As LeRoy explains, it is rooted in urban ?white flight? and the prevalent image of abandoned, disadvantaged ?inner cities.? The perception of urban ?blight? has been used to justify a wholesale giveaway of our public money, land and laws to big corporations, by promising jobs to workers and glamorous legacies to self-serving public officials. Since then, the exportation of manufacturing and even white-collar jobs to underdeveloped countries with very low wages and no protections for either workers or the environment has broadened the job shortage nationally, so that the promise of employment is a magic key to the government coffers.
LeRoy, the founder of Good Jobs First, an organization that aims to promote corporate and government accountability in economic development and smart growth for working families, documents the history of the great American jobs scam, starting in the 1930s with the Fantus Factory Locating Service, a consulting company advising factories about site location based on its analysis of local transportation, labor and materials markets, and taxes. From this modest start, a huge industry has grown for guiding corporations in inveigling and intimidating cities and states to compete with each other in the hopes of ?landing the business? and ?creating jobs.?
The book exposes the array of arcane subsidy schemes devised to transfer public assets to corporations, including zoning exemptions, eminent domain takings, regulatory waivers, tax-free loans, outright cash grants, property and income tax waivers of various sorts, free public land and site preparation, publicly paid utility services, customized public works, privatized public jobs, publicly subsidized health insurance, etc. Most of them are made invisible to the average citizen and even to the seasoned investigator. They are typically structured to shield politicians from public accountability as they wreck communities to create ?business-friendly? climates. It?s an astounding narrative of brazen lying and economic thuggery, and yet, the trend has not only continued, but accelerated-regardless of political party.
Business leaders, as LeRoy quotes them, are well aware that public subsidies are not important factors in their location and hiring decisions. Paul O?Neill, former CEO of Alcoa and President George W. Bush?s first Secretary of the Treasury, is cited thus: ?[As a businessman] I never made an investment decision based on the Tax Code...f you are giving money away I will take it. If you want to give me inducements for something I am going to do anyway, I will take it. But good business people do not do things because of inducements, they do it because they can see that they are going to be able to earn the cost of capital out of their own intelligence and organization of resources.?
Many politicians also know these deals are not ?incentives? but unnecessary giveaways. LeRoy quotes New York City?s Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who inherited Rudolph Giuliani?s financial crisis, which was caused in part by the latter?s years of resource-sapping ?job retention? deals; Bloomberg renounced a $14 million package granted to his own company, saying, ?Any company that makes a decision as to where they are going to be based on the tax rate is a company that won?t be around very long ... If you?re down to that incremental margin you don?t have a business.?
Governor Deval Patrick, when he was running for office, acknowledged that, ?A business that makes a decision on the basis of a tax break alone, that?s a business that?s on its way out of business.? But when asked what governors and legislatures should do to promote business, Patrick said, ?This notion that it takes a tax break, a tax concession, to attract a business ? you want that in your box as a closer.? This was his ?fine print,? to leave him room for politically self-aggrandizing business subsidies, and indeed, the state corporate welfare empire has only grown under Patrick. Instead of keeping his promise to close a set of corporate loopholes that cost Massachusetts $500 million annually, he left half of them in place and cut the corporate tax rate, to leave us with no net benefit, arguing, along with our benighted legislators, that incentives are needed to attract industries. The result will be a permanent overall tax revenue loss, and the corporations will simply devise new loopholes to make up for the few he closed.
Finally, LeRoy provides a dozen recommendations for reform to reverse this self-destructive policy and manage private growth and public finances equitably and efficiently. Reform #1, of course, is ?Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure? ? transparency, a commodity in short supply at the state and municipal level.
http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=city_streets&sc2=&sc3=&id=95787
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
That is untrue._ Research and think before you write and call names._ I often quote, and I often cite._ Before you wrote that I ?haven?t quoted at all? from public records, you should have re-read these 135 citations in the Columbus Center thread.
Date, Post #
2007
26 August, #232
27 August , #248
28 August , #256, 268
29 August , #283
2008
30 March, #455
30 March, #463
30 March, #466
31 March, #479
31 March, #486
1 April, #498, 500, 520, 535, 543, 544
3 April, #617, 640, 660, 666
4 April, #668
7 April, #684, 685
10 April, #721
15 April, #746
22 April, #839
23 April, #842, 846, 899
6 May, #935
7 May, #950, 952, 954, 958
9 May, #967
10 May, #987
11 May, #990, 1004
12 May, #1008
26 May, #1018
27 May, #1030
29 May, #1041
29 May, #1052
30 May, #1054, 1061, 1062
8 July, # 1112
11 July, #1125
13 July, #1137
14 July, #1138, 1144
15 July, #1147, 1149
09 August, #1208
20 August, #1237
21 August, #1261, 1278
1 September, #1318, 1319
7 September, #1340
9 September, #1359
11 September, #1384
23 September, #1385
25 September, #1390, 1395
26 September, #1402
28 September, #1413, 1414
29 September, #1418, 1424, 1432, 1441
30 September, #1445
5 October , #1450, 1452
6 October , #1457
8 October , #1474
13 October, #1480, 1481, 1486
14 October, #1492
26 October, #1499
29 October, #1502
06 November, #1511
14 November, #1512
16 November, #1515
27 November, #1519
29 November, #1525
7 December, #1531
31 December, #1538, 1539, 1540
2009
7 January , #1547
9 January , #1557
16 January, #1564
25 January, #1578, 1581
26 January, #1587
28 January, #1601, 1602, 1605, 1606
29 January, #1609
30 January, #1620
5 February, #1635, 1646
16 February, #1670
8 April, #1677
10 April, #1690
24 April, #1701
29 April, #1731
1 June, # 1774
4 June, # 1785, 1787
5 June, # 1795
6 June, # 1804, 1806, 1809
7 June, # 1812
1 June, # 1815
18 June, #1829, 1830
25 June, #1832
11 July, #1834
16 July, #1835, 1836
21 July, #1850
1 August, #1868, 1870
6 August, #1895
18 August , #901, 1906
20 August, #1928
21 August, #1933, 1938
You ignored the specifications. ? None of the services you listed above can host all 16,000 public records ? for any Windows/MacIntosh user ? to search ? browse ? read ? and download ? as needed._ Re-check the software and service specifications.
You presume incorrectly. ? The vast majority of Columbus Center public records were never released in any electronic format, the custodians aren?t obligated to convert them to electronic format, and among the few pages that are in PD Format, most are not text-searchable, a necessity for an on-line library of public records.
You don?t appreciate indexing. ? Each page of each document has to be read ? and fully understood ? before it can be indexed in a useful manner._ That requires far more skill, experience, and labor than just tagging Flickr photos ?my dog? and ?our cat.?
ArchBoston.org doesn?t have adequate software, qualified staff, or the end-to-end funding needed to obtain, scan, and index all these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.
But that?s not as big a loss as it seems.
Most forum members haven?t even read the entire thread yet._ (If they had, they wouldn?t repeat questions that have already been asked and answered.)_ Stellarfun echoed most members? attitudes best when he wrote on 7 May 2008:_ ?I have neither the time, diligence, or frankly the interest, to peruse thousands of pages of contract and lease documents.?
Your logic is poor. ? All the records are readily available to everybody._ Anyone who reaches categorical conclusions ? without reviewing any of the available evidence ? is a fool._ Your threatening not to believe me is even more foolish, because I did not join the forum to persuade anyone of anything; I joined to post whatever facts other members clearly don?t have, and to observe and record the reactions._ Most foolish of all are the cheerleaders who, every time Columbus Center hits a new low, start crying, ?Halt the discussion! Stop the posts! Lock the thread!? as though silencing the news could change the reality.
The facts about particulate matter are exactly as science has already proven them._ Those facts are not affected by where any individual does ? or does not ? reside._ Case law gives individuals who are harmed by an environmental risk a stronger standing to achieve remediation than those who aren?t, so for some goals, moving is not necessarily the best strategy.
That is untrue._ Research and think before you write and call names._ I often quote, and I often cite._ Before you wrote that I ?haven?t quoted at all? from public records, you should have re-read these 135 citations in the Columbus Center thread.
Date, Post #
2007
26 August, #232
27 August , #248
28 August , #256, 268
29 August , #283
2008
30 March, #455
30 March, #463
30 March, #466
31 March, #479
31 March, #486
1 April, #498, 500, 520, 535, 543, 544
3 April, #617, 640, 660, 666
4 April, #668
7 April, #684, 685
10 April, #721
15 April, #746
22 April, #839
23 April, #842, 846, 899
6 May, #935
7 May, #950, 952, 954, 958
9 May, #967
10 May, #987
11 May, #990, 1004
12 May, #1008
26 May, #1018
27 May, #1030
29 May, #1041
29 May, #1052
30 May, #1054, 1061, 1062
8 July, # 1112
11 July, #1125
13 July, #1137
14 July, #1138, 1144
15 July, #1147, 1149
09 August, #1208
20 August, #1237
21 August, #1261, 1278
1 September, #1318, 1319
7 September, #1340
9 September, #1359
11 September, #1384
23 September, #1385
25 September, #1390, 1395
26 September, #1402
28 September, #1413, 1414
29 September, #1418, 1424, 1432, 1441
30 September, #1445
5 October , #1450, 1452
6 October , #1457
8 October , #1474
13 October, #1480, 1481, 1486
14 October, #1492
26 October, #1499
29 October, #1502
06 November, #1511
14 November, #1512
16 November, #1515
27 November, #1519
29 November, #1525
7 December, #1531
31 December, #1538, 1539, 1540
2009
7 January , #1547
9 January , #1557
16 January, #1564
25 January, #1578, 1581
26 January, #1587
28 January, #1601, 1602, 1605, 1606
29 January, #1609
30 January, #1620
5 February, #1635, 1646
16 February, #1670
8 April, #1677
10 April, #1690
24 April, #1701
29 April, #1731
1 June, # 1774
4 June, # 1785, 1787
5 June, # 1795
6 June, # 1804, 1806, 1809
7 June, # 1812
1 June, # 1815
18 June, #1829, 1830
25 June, #1832
11 July, #1834
16 July, #1835, 1836
21 July, #1850
1 August, #1868, 1870
6 August, #1895
18 August , #901, 1906
20 August, #1928
21 August, #1933, 1938
You ignored the specifications. ? None of the services you listed above can host all 16,000 public records ? for any Windows/MacIntosh user ? to search ? browse ? read ? and download ? as needed._ Re-check the software and service specifications.
You presume incorrectly. ? The vast majority of Columbus Center public records were never released in any electronic format, the custodians aren?t obligated to convert them to electronic format, and among the few pages that are in PD Format, most are not text-searchable, a necessity for an on-line library of public records.
You don?t appreciate indexing. ? Each page of each document has to be read ? and fully understood ? before it can be indexed in a useful manner._ That requires far more skill, experience, and labor than just tagging Flickr photos ?my dog? and ?our cat.?
ArchBoston.org doesn?t have adequate software, qualified staff, or the end-to-end funding needed to obtain, scan, and index all these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free.
But that?s not as big a loss as it seems.
Most forum members haven?t even read the entire thread yet._ (If they had, they wouldn?t repeat questions that have already been asked and answered.)_ Stellarfun echoed most members? attitudes best when he wrote on 7 May 2008:_ ?I have neither the time, diligence, or frankly the interest, to peruse thousands of pages of contract and lease documents.?
Your logic is poor. ? All the records are readily available to everybody._ Anyone who reaches categorical conclusions ? without reviewing any of the available evidence ? is a fool._ Your threatening not to believe me is even more foolish, because I did not join the forum to persuade anyone of anything; I joined to post whatever facts other members clearly don?t have, and to observe and record the reactions._ Most foolish of all are the cheerleaders who, every time Columbus Center hits a new low, start crying, ?Halt the discussion! Stop the posts! Lock the thread!? as though silencing the news could change the reality.
The facts about particulate matter are exactly as science has already proven them._ Those facts are not affected by where any individual does ? or does not ? reside._ Case law gives individuals who are harmed by an environmental risk a stronger standing to achieve remediation than those who aren?t, so for some goals, moving is not necessarily the best strategy.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
You might want to help contribute to this: http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/holerenderings?pg=15
You know, instead of just obstructing without offering an alternative plan besides "follow the master plan" (which is unprofitable, therefore it has never been followed or approved) or "build nothing"
You might want to help contribute to this: http://www.boston.com/business/gallery/holerenderings?pg=15
You know, instead of just obstructing without offering an alternative plan besides "follow the master plan" (which is unprofitable, therefore it has never been followed or approved) or "build nothing"
Last edited:
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
You don?t understand the political linguistics that state officials are using._ No one has ?put forth $30 million? as you wrote.
State officials implied a $30 million subsidy just to see what the reaction will be._ If reaction is positive, they will waste the money as planned; if negative, then they will say it was only an idea, and then do something else._ Politicians waste taxpayer money all the time._ They don?t mind if they waste it; they just prefer to avoid getting caught wasting it.
Firstly, I am not a ?neighborhood? person, as you wrote; I am an urban planning activist with a scope that goes much farther than just neighborhoods._ Secondly, in addition to the long-standing issues of which the public was always aware, I discovered new issues that arose after the public meetings had stopped._ Here are just a few.
? The air rights were leased without any fair market value property appraisal, a violation of public policy.
? The developers never got their tunnel designs approved by the sworn, independent quality-control engineers required by law.
? A project which was proposed and approved as subsidy-free later sought 19 public subsidies worth $605 million. Documenting this dishonesty benefitted taxpayers citywide, statewide, and nationwide.
? Fraudulent subsidy applications were submitted.
? Every bank ever asked about funding this project refused; no loans were issued, approved, or even applied for.
? Condominium owners inherit fiscal and legal liability for tunnel design, construction, inspection, preventive maintenance, remedial repair, government-mandated upgrade, and periodic demolition, removal, and replacement.
? The developers do not know the costs of tunnel insurance, upkeep, or replacement.
? The public parks were secretly privatized.
All that is untrue._ I did none of the things you wrote above.
Firstly, no foundation work ever started, because the developers never got permission to build either the tunnels or the buildings._ The developer?s lawyers and the Turnpike?s lawyers were always careful to specify that they were only doing ?site preparation and pre-construction activity.?
Secondly, California (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) halted funding in September 2007._ Winn Development then foolishly chose to proceed with ?site preparation and pre-construction activity? anyway, even though they had no funding, no subsidies, and no bank loans._ What little cash they had quickly evaporated._ In March 2008, Winn sent the workers home, returned all the rented heavy equipment, and abandoned the construction site._ Nothing was ever built._ A few months later, California took project control away from Winn, and gave it to Beal & Related, who ? just like California & Winn ? never put in enough capital, never got enough subsidies, never got any bank loans, and never built anything.
The fact that nothing got built is entirely the fault of the development teams.
The fact that there are no performance bonds to restore the 7-acre site is the fault of the developers (whose lease required them to buy bonds), and the Turnpike Authority (which forgot to demand bonds before work started).
Re-read the newspaper articles since September 2007 for details.
That is untrue._ This project would have halted eventually anyway, because (a) every bank asked to fund it always refused; (b) the hoped-for subsidies never materialized; and (c) California?s investor-owners lost faith in the venture and stopped funding it._ Under such circumstances, it?s far better to stop work during the first 6 months than during the next 15 years._ Yes, the construction that started in 2007 did not have to finish until 2022.
That is untrue._ No newspaper ever quoted me as being ?unhappy with the project? as you wrote, so re-read the articles._ For 14 years, I have been a supporter of air rights development, and a critic of this proposal, which are two very different things._ I remain critical because there was no competitive bidding, no financial disclosure, no Turnpike Master Plan compliance, and the public subsidy applications were fraudulent.
The verb ?listen? has two meanings:_ ?hear aurally? and ?cooperatively comply.?_ You mistakenly merged the two meanings, and so now you are confused._ Yes, developers do, indeed, listen to everything spoken about their proposals, because they want to know everything that people are saying._ No, they do not ?listen? in the sense of doing everything that is asked of them._ They listen (hear) regarding every remediation issue, and then don?t listen (procrastinate) as long as possible, to maximize profits._ These developers are behaving exactly as I specified: hearing, and then doing nothing.
You don?t understand the political linguistics that state officials are using._ No one has ?put forth $30 million? as you wrote.
State officials implied a $30 million subsidy just to see what the reaction will be._ If reaction is positive, they will waste the money as planned; if negative, then they will say it was only an idea, and then do something else._ Politicians waste taxpayer money all the time._ They don?t mind if they waste it; they just prefer to avoid getting caught wasting it.
Firstly, I am not a ?neighborhood? person, as you wrote; I am an urban planning activist with a scope that goes much farther than just neighborhoods._ Secondly, in addition to the long-standing issues of which the public was always aware, I discovered new issues that arose after the public meetings had stopped._ Here are just a few.
? The air rights were leased without any fair market value property appraisal, a violation of public policy.
? The developers never got their tunnel designs approved by the sworn, independent quality-control engineers required by law.
? A project which was proposed and approved as subsidy-free later sought 19 public subsidies worth $605 million. Documenting this dishonesty benefitted taxpayers citywide, statewide, and nationwide.
? Fraudulent subsidy applications were submitted.
? Every bank ever asked about funding this project refused; no loans were issued, approved, or even applied for.
? Condominium owners inherit fiscal and legal liability for tunnel design, construction, inspection, preventive maintenance, remedial repair, government-mandated upgrade, and periodic demolition, removal, and replacement.
? The developers do not know the costs of tunnel insurance, upkeep, or replacement.
? The public parks were secretly privatized.
All that is untrue._ I did none of the things you wrote above.
Firstly, no foundation work ever started, because the developers never got permission to build either the tunnels or the buildings._ The developer?s lawyers and the Turnpike?s lawyers were always careful to specify that they were only doing ?site preparation and pre-construction activity.?
Secondly, California (CalPERS-CUIP-MURC) halted funding in September 2007._ Winn Development then foolishly chose to proceed with ?site preparation and pre-construction activity? anyway, even though they had no funding, no subsidies, and no bank loans._ What little cash they had quickly evaporated._ In March 2008, Winn sent the workers home, returned all the rented heavy equipment, and abandoned the construction site._ Nothing was ever built._ A few months later, California took project control away from Winn, and gave it to Beal & Related, who ? just like California & Winn ? never put in enough capital, never got enough subsidies, never got any bank loans, and never built anything.
The fact that nothing got built is entirely the fault of the development teams.
The fact that there are no performance bonds to restore the 7-acre site is the fault of the developers (whose lease required them to buy bonds), and the Turnpike Authority (which forgot to demand bonds before work started).
Re-read the newspaper articles since September 2007 for details.
That is untrue._ This project would have halted eventually anyway, because (a) every bank asked to fund it always refused; (b) the hoped-for subsidies never materialized; and (c) California?s investor-owners lost faith in the venture and stopped funding it._ Under such circumstances, it?s far better to stop work during the first 6 months than during the next 15 years._ Yes, the construction that started in 2007 did not have to finish until 2022.
That is untrue._ No newspaper ever quoted me as being ?unhappy with the project? as you wrote, so re-read the articles._ For 14 years, I have been a supporter of air rights development, and a critic of this proposal, which are two very different things._ I remain critical because there was no competitive bidding, no financial disclosure, no Turnpike Master Plan compliance, and the public subsidy applications were fraudulent.
The verb ?listen? has two meanings:_ ?hear aurally? and ?cooperatively comply.?_ You mistakenly merged the two meanings, and so now you are confused._ Yes, developers do, indeed, listen to everything spoken about their proposals, because they want to know everything that people are saying._ No, they do not ?listen? in the sense of doing everything that is asked of them._ They listen (hear) regarding every remediation issue, and then don?t listen (procrastinate) as long as possible, to maximize profits._ These developers are behaving exactly as I specified: hearing, and then doing nothing.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
To date, no one is on record as opposing air rights development._ But many people are on record as opposing:_ non-competitive bids, no financial disclosure, Turnpike Master Plan violations, public subsidies to private projects, and environmental damage.
To date, no one is on record as opposing air rights development._ But many people are on record as opposing:_ non-competitive bids, no financial disclosure, Turnpike Master Plan violations, public subsidies to private projects, and environmental damage.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
Yes they can, if you convert them into the correct format first.
Then, there are many options. Firstly, you can type them into Microsoft Word if you want full searching capability, but of course that is time consuming. Secondly, you can scan them into PDF, which has text recognition which allows searching, but sometimes won't work if your scanned images aren't of a sufficiently high quality. Lastly, you can take photos of them and upload them onto Photobucket, which is the fastest method but doesn't allow text searching.
Public records usually aren't indexed. So just word-search capability is good enough. This is just an excuse not to do the required work, since only you have all 16,000 pages of public records and have the capability to share them with others, other than us making a huge effort of time and money to find the location of the public records, when many of us do not live in the City of Boston.
Yes, this is a vBulletin forum, so if you want to post something, you link to it. That does not require any of the things you said, as the online hosting services I mentioned earlier provide the software to host your material for an infinite period of time for free, and even if one goes offline, uploading them to multiple hosts is a good way to make sure that these public records are always accessible.
What do you have to lose? Since you have already put in so much effort remembering the number, date, and content of all posts in this thread, uploading a measly 16,000 pages of public records shouldn't be too difficult. If this audience is unappreciative, then why spend the effort that you have already made with your hundreds of detailed posts? If you want to educate others, it's best to show all of the related materials to your target audience.
If they were so "readily available," then you can provide free transportation to the location of the public records for all of us who are interested in looking through them. Otherwise, they aren't "readily available," in fact, they are probably located in many disparate locations where one can probably only be granted access to with an advance appointment.
irrelevant ad hominen attacks
So that means no one else along the I-90 corridor is interested enough to file a lawsuit about UFPs (plus why haven't you, already)? That's awfully presumptuous, even by you. Fact is, if you cared about the health of yourself and others, you should educate as many residents of your neighborhood about UFPs and try to encourage them to relocate to an area with a lower concentration of UFPs. Either that, or try to start a class-action lawsuit forcing someone to fix the problem so thousands don't have to die just because of the government's negligence (I can sense a huge news story/scandal if it were all true).
Yes they can, if you convert them into the correct format first.
Then, there are many options. Firstly, you can type them into Microsoft Word if you want full searching capability, but of course that is time consuming. Secondly, you can scan them into PDF, which has text recognition which allows searching, but sometimes won't work if your scanned images aren't of a sufficiently high quality. Lastly, you can take photos of them and upload them onto Photobucket, which is the fastest method but doesn't allow text searching.
Public records usually aren't indexed. So just word-search capability is good enough. This is just an excuse not to do the required work, since only you have all 16,000 pages of public records and have the capability to share them with others, other than us making a huge effort of time and money to find the location of the public records, when many of us do not live in the City of Boston.
Yes, this is a vBulletin forum, so if you want to post something, you link to it. That does not require any of the things you said, as the online hosting services I mentioned earlier provide the software to host your material for an infinite period of time for free, and even if one goes offline, uploading them to multiple hosts is a good way to make sure that these public records are always accessible.
What do you have to lose? Since you have already put in so much effort remembering the number, date, and content of all posts in this thread, uploading a measly 16,000 pages of public records shouldn't be too difficult. If this audience is unappreciative, then why spend the effort that you have already made with your hundreds of detailed posts? If you want to educate others, it's best to show all of the related materials to your target audience.
If they were so "readily available," then you can provide free transportation to the location of the public records for all of us who are interested in looking through them. Otherwise, they aren't "readily available," in fact, they are probably located in many disparate locations where one can probably only be granted access to with an advance appointment.
irrelevant ad hominen attacks
So that means no one else along the I-90 corridor is interested enough to file a lawsuit about UFPs (plus why haven't you, already)? That's awfully presumptuous, even by you. Fact is, if you cared about the health of yourself and others, you should educate as many residents of your neighborhood about UFPs and try to encourage them to relocate to an area with a lower concentration of UFPs. Either that, or try to start a class-action lawsuit forcing someone to fix the problem so thousands don't have to die just because of the government's negligence (I can sense a huge news story/scandal if it were all true).
Last edited:
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
No, none of the products you chose would work in your project._ Format has nothing to do with it._ Re-read the specifications._ Not a single one of the products you chose can host the public records in all 6 of these ways at the same time:
1. for any Windows/MacIntosh user,
2. to search,
3. to browse,
4. to read,
5. to download, and
6. on an as-needed basis.
If you believe, as you wrote, that you could re-type, scan, or photograph these 16,000 pages of public records successfully, then you clearly have never done such a project._ But since you insist it would work, then start today, and as soon as you?re done, let everyone know how it went.
Yes, but for the scope and scale of your project, both pages and documents would need to be indexed and paginated to be useful._ Remember, you haven?t read these documents, and don?t appreciate the content.
No, it isn?t._ You haven?t done anything on this scale (or you wouldn?t say such things).
No, it isn?t an excuse._ I said from the outset that I would never do this project, because I know what?s required to obtain, scan, and index these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free._ It would be wasteful and pointless for me to provide any more information to people who won?t even read the existing thread, who already complain about too much information, and who have no control over the outcome._ You, on the other hand, are the only one who sees value in your project, so it is you who has to do it (because no one else ever will).
That is untrue._ I am not the only person with these records._ They all came from public sources._ All of them are available to anybody._ And since your project is evidence-dependent, you have to get the evidence from each source yourself, not from a third party.
If no one thinks you can do this, or no one expects valuable results from you, then ArchBoston.org won?t be willing to sponsor the staffing, funding, and facilities for your project._ If ArchBoston.org is willing to sponsor your project, then you should start it today.
I post here to provide facts that others do not have, for public discussion._ But my goals don?t include educating members of ArchBoston.org, so for me, pursuing your project has no value.
No, it?s not._ Do the arithmetic._ Forum members won't even read all of their 199 web pages covering the last 3.5 years, but you want to obtain, scan, and index 16,000 more pages covering 14 years. No, showing an audience all possible materials is not necessarily best; with this audience it would be especially counter-productive._ So far, you are the only person interested in pursuing your on-line public records project, so if you can?t get ArchBoston.org to sponsor you, then you?ll have to either get another sponsor, or else take the hint, and give it up.
No, none of the products you chose would work in your project._ Format has nothing to do with it._ Re-read the specifications._ Not a single one of the products you chose can host the public records in all 6 of these ways at the same time:
1. for any Windows/MacIntosh user,
2. to search,
3. to browse,
4. to read,
5. to download, and
6. on an as-needed basis.
If you believe, as you wrote, that you could re-type, scan, or photograph these 16,000 pages of public records successfully, then you clearly have never done such a project._ But since you insist it would work, then start today, and as soon as you?re done, let everyone know how it went.
Yes, but for the scope and scale of your project, both pages and documents would need to be indexed and paginated to be useful._ Remember, you haven?t read these documents, and don?t appreciate the content.
No, it isn?t._ You haven?t done anything on this scale (or you wouldn?t say such things).
No, it isn?t an excuse._ I said from the outset that I would never do this project, because I know what?s required to obtain, scan, and index these materials, for an unknown number of years, for an unappreciative audience, for free._ It would be wasteful and pointless for me to provide any more information to people who won?t even read the existing thread, who already complain about too much information, and who have no control over the outcome._ You, on the other hand, are the only one who sees value in your project, so it is you who has to do it (because no one else ever will).
That is untrue._ I am not the only person with these records._ They all came from public sources._ All of them are available to anybody._ And since your project is evidence-dependent, you have to get the evidence from each source yourself, not from a third party.
If no one thinks you can do this, or no one expects valuable results from you, then ArchBoston.org won?t be willing to sponsor the staffing, funding, and facilities for your project._ If ArchBoston.org is willing to sponsor your project, then you should start it today.
I post here to provide facts that others do not have, for public discussion._ But my goals don?t include educating members of ArchBoston.org, so for me, pursuing your project has no value.
No, it?s not._ Do the arithmetic._ Forum members won't even read all of their 199 web pages covering the last 3.5 years, but you want to obtain, scan, and index 16,000 more pages covering 14 years. No, showing an audience all possible materials is not necessarily best; with this audience it would be especially counter-productive._ So far, you are the only person interested in pursuing your on-line public records project, so if you can?t get ArchBoston.org to sponsor you, then you?ll have to either get another sponsor, or else take the hint, and give it up.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]The Related Companies lose stalled project in foreign bank foreclosure[/size]
The Related Companies, the financial powerhouse enlisted by The Beal Companies to save Columbus Center over one year ago, has lost a 3.5-year-old project to a German bank, which is selling it at a foreclosure auction next month.
Related tried to start ?Commons at Prospect Hill,? a $500 million, 1.7-million s.f. mixed use project in Waltham at the same time that California tried to start ?Columbus Center,? an $850 million, 1.5-million s.f. mixed use project in Boston._ At both sites, nothing was ever built.
In August 2008, Related promised a Columbus Center Financial Viability Review to be published in October 2008._ Related extended its own deadline 3 times, first to November, then to December, then to April, and finally stopped taking inquiries about it altogether.
The loss of the 119-acre property will be costly, and that doesn?t bode well for Related?s stalled efforts to re-launch the 14-year-old Columbus Center proposal.
http://www.boston.com/business/arti...oid_project_in_waltham_not_dead_analysts_say/
[size=+2]The Related Companies lose stalled project in foreign bank foreclosure[/size]
The Related Companies, the financial powerhouse enlisted by The Beal Companies to save Columbus Center over one year ago, has lost a 3.5-year-old project to a German bank, which is selling it at a foreclosure auction next month.
Related tried to start ?Commons at Prospect Hill,? a $500 million, 1.7-million s.f. mixed use project in Waltham at the same time that California tried to start ?Columbus Center,? an $850 million, 1.5-million s.f. mixed use project in Boston._ At both sites, nothing was ever built.
In August 2008, Related promised a Columbus Center Financial Viability Review to be published in October 2008._ Related extended its own deadline 3 times, first to November, then to December, then to April, and finally stopped taking inquiries about it altogether.
The loss of the 119-acre property will be costly, and that doesn?t bode well for Related?s stalled efforts to re-launch the 14-year-old Columbus Center proposal.
http://www.boston.com/business/arti...oid_project_in_waltham_not_dead_analysts_say/
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
I am not a designer, but I hope many others contribute ideas. Both of your mistakes above show that you still haven?t read the Columbus Center thread in its entirety.
1. I did offer an alternative plan, along with thousands of other people. Re-read post #1938 on 21 August.
2. There?s no evidence that the Turnpike Master Plan is un-profitable as you wrote, and 5 experienced development teams have submitted 5 proposals that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan precisely because they find the Plan profitable.
I am not a designer, but I hope many others contribute ideas. Both of your mistakes above show that you still haven?t read the Columbus Center thread in its entirety.
1. I did offer an alternative plan, along with thousands of other people. Re-read post #1938 on 21 August.
2. There?s no evidence that the Turnpike Master Plan is un-profitable as you wrote, and 5 experienced development teams have submitted 5 proposals that comply with the Turnpike Master Plan precisely because they find the Plan profitable.
Last edited:
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
None of them can host them in all 6 ways at the same time, but one can download on an as-needed basis using Windows/Macintosh, search them, browse them, and read them with all of the links I gave. You should really appreciate the advice I am giving you rather than be obstinate about it.
I don't have the public records, so obviously I can't do that!
You don't have to do that at first. If you really feel it is necessary, you can add that in at a later date.
Then show us, and we'll then be able to see how it's so big that word-search isn't even useful!
Then don't post anymore here, if you aren't even going to educate us when that is what you say you are doing. Quoting from the public records is not sufficient when we cannot see the actual public records where they are from, to determine their full context.
You're the only person with all 16,000 pages. They are only available if you can physically go to the location where they are stored, and I suspect they are stored in many disparate locations and available by appointment only.
You don't need "staffing, funding, and facilities" to upload the public records. As I have repeatedly stated, the services I have linked to are free, host your files for an unlimited amount of time, and allow an unlimited number of people to download them.
Really? Then what were you doing with your initial question & answer style format in your posts, a format usually used to educate others? If you can't even post the source of your "facts," then they have "no value."
As I have already said, it does not require a sponsor, it just takes a little bit of time, something that you seem to have a lot of with you first reading 16,000 pages of public records and then posting detailed grammatically correct posts concerning Columbus Center including lengthy diatribes against certain forum members. If you can spend all the time necessary to do that (and I'm sure it took a long time), I'm sure you can spend the small extra time and effort required to share these public records with everyone else.
Also, please don't avoid this question:
None of them can host them in all 6 ways at the same time, but one can download on an as-needed basis using Windows/Macintosh, search them, browse them, and read them with all of the links I gave. You should really appreciate the advice I am giving you rather than be obstinate about it.
I don't have the public records, so obviously I can't do that!
You don't have to do that at first. If you really feel it is necessary, you can add that in at a later date.
Then show us, and we'll then be able to see how it's so big that word-search isn't even useful!
Then don't post anymore here, if you aren't even going to educate us when that is what you say you are doing. Quoting from the public records is not sufficient when we cannot see the actual public records where they are from, to determine their full context.
You're the only person with all 16,000 pages. They are only available if you can physically go to the location where they are stored, and I suspect they are stored in many disparate locations and available by appointment only.
You don't need "staffing, funding, and facilities" to upload the public records. As I have repeatedly stated, the services I have linked to are free, host your files for an unlimited amount of time, and allow an unlimited number of people to download them.
Really? Then what were you doing with your initial question & answer style format in your posts, a format usually used to educate others? If you can't even post the source of your "facts," then they have "no value."
As I have already said, it does not require a sponsor, it just takes a little bit of time, something that you seem to have a lot of with you first reading 16,000 pages of public records and then posting detailed grammatically correct posts concerning Columbus Center including lengthy diatribes against certain forum members. If you can spend all the time necessary to do that (and I'm sure it took a long time), I'm sure you can spend the small extra time and effort required to share these public records with everyone else.
Also, please don't avoid this question:
BarbaricManchurian said:
Re: Columbus Center
The article that you linked doesn't offer any information that supports your assertion that the foreclosure will be costly to Related. This is because there is no indication how much of an equity stake Related has in the partnership, and how much of that stake was paid for in cash.
The article that you linked doesn't offer any information that supports your assertion that the foreclosure will be costly to Related. This is because there is no indication how much of an equity stake Related has in the partnership, and how much of that stake was paid for in cash.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
? No, you don?t have the public records.
? The pure, evidence-based project you?re thinking of requires getting the source documents from government records custodians and original authors, not from third parties.
? You?re still unsure (above) as to whether getting and reading these records take a ?little? or a ?long? time._ Just do the first 1,000 pages, and you will see.
? If you?re sure you can do all this without staffing, funding, and facilities, then prove it, and just do it._ (Hint: your refusal to measure resources for your own proposed project mirrors your refusal to measure total development cost at the proposed Columbus Center, so your project is likely to end the same way.)
This Forum is for discussions about the built environment; it?s not a lawsuit evidence library._ Since ArchBoston.org won?t give you the resources to do what you call a ?measly? project, then you have to find another sponsor, or give it up altogether, because you are the only one who sees value in your idea.
Regarding particulate matter issues, people and organizations are far more active than you realize._ Intermediate progress is not reported here; news is periodically posted here, but only after it is reported elsewhere, so you will have to wait.
? No, you don?t have the public records.
? The pure, evidence-based project you?re thinking of requires getting the source documents from government records custodians and original authors, not from third parties.
? You?re still unsure (above) as to whether getting and reading these records take a ?little? or a ?long? time._ Just do the first 1,000 pages, and you will see.
? If you?re sure you can do all this without staffing, funding, and facilities, then prove it, and just do it._ (Hint: your refusal to measure resources for your own proposed project mirrors your refusal to measure total development cost at the proposed Columbus Center, so your project is likely to end the same way.)
This Forum is for discussions about the built environment; it?s not a lawsuit evidence library._ Since ArchBoston.org won?t give you the resources to do what you call a ?measly? project, then you have to find another sponsor, or give it up altogether, because you are the only one who sees value in your idea.
Regarding particulate matter issues, people and organizations are far more active than you realize._ Intermediate progress is not reported here; news is periodically posted here, but only after it is reported elsewhere, so you will have to wait.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
As Columbus Center?s owners have attested, it always costs money to spend 3.5 years, attempting a $500 million project, that ends with nothing built._ That cost is aggravated when the property is taken back by a bank.
It?s true that the article does not specify Related?s equity, or the exact amount that Related lost on the foreclosure._ That?s because Related refuses to talk, unlike CalPERS, CUIP, MacFarlane, and Winn, who bragged about their $110 million loss (?Cassin vows Columbus Center project remains alive and well,? Banker & Tradesman, 14 April 2008; ?State pulls $10m slated for Columbus Center,? Boston Globe, 8 April 2008).
But anyone wanting to a precise accounting of how much Related lost ? and when ? and on what ? can probably find it among the Bankruptcy Court records.
As Columbus Center?s owners have attested, it always costs money to spend 3.5 years, attempting a $500 million project, that ends with nothing built._ That cost is aggravated when the property is taken back by a bank.
It?s true that the article does not specify Related?s equity, or the exact amount that Related lost on the foreclosure._ That?s because Related refuses to talk, unlike CalPERS, CUIP, MacFarlane, and Winn, who bragged about their $110 million loss (?Cassin vows Columbus Center project remains alive and well,? Banker & Tradesman, 14 April 2008; ?State pulls $10m slated for Columbus Center,? Boston Globe, 8 April 2008).
But anyone wanting to a precise accounting of how much Related lost ? and when ? and on what ? can probably find it among the Bankruptcy Court records.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
[size=+2]Last piece of steel[/size]
South End News ❘ September 10, 2009 ❘ Page 15
This last piece of rusted steel foundation will be demolished by state equipment and crews in early September, on Turnpike Parcel 18 at Berkeley and Cortes Streets. The steel was installed in October 2007 for the proposed Columbus Center.
Photo: Ned Flaherty
http://www.mysouthend.com/
[size=+2]Last piece of steel[/size]
South End News ❘ September 10, 2009 ❘ Page 15
This last piece of rusted steel foundation will be demolished by state equipment and crews in early September, on Turnpike Parcel 18 at Berkeley and Cortes Streets. The steel was installed in October 2007 for the proposed Columbus Center.
Photo: Ned Flaherty
http://www.mysouthend.com/
TetOff
New member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Columbus Center
Ned Flaherty, post #1990:
Ned Flaherty, post #1990:
Ned Flaherty, previous post:
At this pace, you'll be arguing both sides of issues in consecutive posts. It is, however, remarkable that: though you assured us no foundation work has been started, you also promise us that the last of it is now being removed. Rest assured, we treat all your musings with a similar level of credulity.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Re: Columbus Center
I said that your diatribes against personal opponents on this forum have obviously took a long time to write, with you tracking every post on this thread and using proper grammar and such. Since you have taken such a long time already posting here, it only takes a little extra time to do the small favor I am requesting so that I can learn!
I don't have the public records, so obviously I can't do it. You have them, so you can use something kids these days call a "scanner" and upload them onto any of the sites I repeatedly told you. That requires no extra resources besides the ones you already have, it simply requires some time, something that you obviously have a lot of.
Also, please don't avoid this question:
I said that your diatribes against personal opponents on this forum have obviously took a long time to write, with you tracking every post on this thread and using proper grammar and such. Since you have taken such a long time already posting here, it only takes a little extra time to do the small favor I am requesting so that I can learn!
I don't have the public records, so obviously I can't do it. You have them, so you can use something kids these days call a "scanner" and upload them onto any of the sites I repeatedly told you. That requires no extra resources besides the ones you already have, it simply requires some time, something that you obviously have a lot of.
Also, please don't avoid this question:
BarbaricManchurian said:
- Status