Columbus Center: RIP | Back Bay

[bostonbred]

Re: Columbus Center

Mr. Ned F. CRUSYHED you all!!!! Fensway Cntre is NEXT dogahoe too FALL!!!

 

[itchy]

Re: Columbus Center

I drew up a list of 27 Site Restoration Tasks, and met with MA DOT Deputy Secretary Peter O?Connor, and later MA DOT Secretary Jeff Mullan, to urge faster progress. They accepted the task list, and slowly pursued it for a while. But over the last 1-1/2 years, only 7 of those tasks were finished. With 20 of the 27 tasks still un-assigned, un-scheduled, and un-started, at this rate, restoration won?t finish until February 2013 ? 17 years after Columbus Center was first proposed.

On 24 September 2009, four state legislators wrote to the MA DOT Secretary and asked that names and deadlines be assigned to each outstanding task so that the property can be restored to its 2005 condition ? and put back out for competitive bids ? much sooner than 2013, and so that tollpayers and taxpayers can get reimbursed for having to fund the 7-acre restoration at public expense.

As of 31 December 2009, those legislators had no progress to report from DOT.

Ned, are you the head of a state legislative committee? A state agency? What gives you the power to draw up "task lists" and demand that the state follow them? Can I draw up task lists for Gov. Patrick and expect groups of state legislators to follow up and ensure that they're followed? I'm sorry, but this sounds like a perversion of representative democracy, doesn't it?

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Columbus Center

Welcome home, Itchy.

 

[itchy]

Re: Columbus Center

Thanks, Beton Brut.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

. . . What gives you the power to draw up "task lists"?

The U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution empower citizens to raise issues. I combined 27 issues into 1 list to facilitate research, review, discussion, decision-making, and execution.

. . . What gives you the power to . . . demand that the state follow them?

Re-read my message. I demanded nothing. I only urged consideration of each issue. (But since you asked, the answer to your question is that both Constitutions empower citizens to make demands of their governments.)

. . . Can I draw up task lists for Gov. Patrick?

Yes, you and he can do that. ?Together we can? was his campaign slogan. You can draw up task lists not just for a governor, but also for anyone else who will listen to you. But before wasting your time creating a presentation, be sure you can even get an appointment in the first place.

. . . Can I . . . expect groups of state legislators to follow up and ensure that they're followed?

Yes, you can ask legislators to follow up. And yes, you can hope that they do. However, not every legislator does everything that every constituent asks. To get the results you desire, you have to research, document, and argue your case effectively.

I did exactly that.

The project owners, of course, refused their obligations. But so far, no other citizen, journalist, legislator, or transportation official has disagreed with any of the 27 tasks. Actually, everyone with whom I spoke appreciated the fact that someone bothered to organize a usable checklist.

. . . this sounds like a perversion of representative democracy, doesn't it?

No. It does not, and it is not. In fact, urging elected officials and agency leaders to consider doing what they are already empowered to do is a reinforcement of representative democracy.

You and other forum members who are interested in civics and who still think that Columbus Center is ?a fine project? (forum member Ablarc) and ?a great victory for the City!? (Palindrome) that ?has NO negatives? (Barbaric Manchurian) might well ask each other ? and also government officials:

How much did taxpayers lose . . .

? . . . when 43 city, state, and federal agencies pursued Columbus Center for 15 years?
? . . . when the City waived the Master Plan requirement for a 2-acre public park?
? . . . when the state decided not to use a fair market value property appraisal?
? . . . when the state decided not to collect the $12.2 million base rent as called for in the 2006 lease?
? . . . when the City waived property taxes for 19 years?
? . . . when the state waived income taxes?
? . . . when the state decided not to make the owners buy performance bonds?
? . . . when the state decided to allow a 30-year project schedule?
? . . . when the state decided to restore the abandoned 7-acre site itself?

And what precautions has the state enacted to prevent repeat failures, both at these 4 properties, and at 18 other I-90 corridor properties?

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

 

[bostonbred]

Re: Columbus Center

Iam SORY. BUT. You angry LOOSER side here beateing the Mr.Ned's horse until the hide is RAW!!! AND IT IS SORE. HE IS BEATEN YOU. SO. SURENDER YOUR HORSE NOW!!!

 

[bjamessuchy]

Re: Columbus Center

that's really naive. about the list writing thing.

 

[bostonbred]

Re: Columbus Center

Mr. Besamemucho Iam thinking that MR. Ned F. has the good listings of tasks and is VERRY orenized with the thoughts.

 

[Patriots_1228]

Re: Columbus Center

I have a secret feeling that Bostonbred is from springfield or worcester...

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center: No solution in sight for this swath of the South End[/size]

January 22, 2010 ? by Mary K. Pratt ? Special to the Boston Business Journal

Like many of the city?s other major projects in the pipeline, the Columbus Center plans got sidelined when the economy crashed and financing for big developments dried up.

WinnDevelopment, part of the Boston-based WinnCos., initially spearheaded the project. But Alan Eisner, WinnDevelopment spokesman and president of Regan Communications Group, said WinnDevelopment is now a ?significant but minor stakeholder? in the project.

That?s officially where it stands today.

?We?re waiting for the financial markets to improve,? Eisner said. He said all the parties are ?working with the city and state to come up with a financial plan to move the project forward.?

However, Eisner wasn?t able to give a time line for the project.

?It all depends on the financial markets, being able to get sufficient financing on terms that are conducive to moving the project forward. That?s the subject of ongoing negotiations with financial institutions,? he said.

Eisner said he couldn?t comment on whether the scope of the project will change, and referred questions to the other stakeholders, The Beal Cos. and MacFarlane Partners.

The Beal Cos. declined to comment, and a spokesman for MacFarlane Partners said the firm was no longer involved and referred questions to Stockbridge Real Estate Funds in San Francisco.

Stockbridge did not respond to questions.

According to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the project is still on the books as it was approved in 2003. Any changes would have to be approved by not only the BRA but also the state?s Office of Transportation, which runs the Massachusetts Turnpike.

But at this point nothing new seems to be on the horizon.

?Unfortunately we?re stuck in a holding pattern right now,? said state Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, the Democrat from the Third Suffolk District. Michlewitz said it?s too early to tell what this year might bring at the site, but he indicated it?s not looking good.

?Optimism is at an all-time low just because of the stagnant nature of this entire project,? he said. ?I think the time has come for us to either hold the developer to moving forward with the project or moving forward with the restoration.?

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2010/01/25/focus4.html

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

The Boston Business Journal story above contains 3 errors, and overlooks 2 key points.

ERRORS

1. Incorrect cause ? Boston Business Journal named the project?s cause of failure as the general economy. That is untrue. Columbus Center did not fail because of anything to do with the general economy. It failed because it never had the 40% investor funds and 60% bank loans that it claimed to have. Even during strong economies, it never had the funds needed to proceed.

2. Obsolete source ? Boston Business Journal used a source that?s almost 2 years out of date. The Columbus Center proposal has not been managed by Winn, or Regan Communications, or Alan Eisner since summer 2008, when owner CalPERS-CUIP-MacFarlane took the project away from them and gave control to The Beal Companies, The Related Companies, and McDermott Ventures.

3. Obsolete information ? Boston Business Journal reported Winn?s claim that ?all the parties are working with the city and state? but failed to report that Winn?s claim hasn?t been true for a long time. City and state agencies say they ceased working on this proposal years ago. Moreover, no financial institution can engage in ?ongoing negotiations? because before such negotiations can start, a project must meet the minimum commercial lending criteria (e.g., 40% cash from owners). This project never met the minimum criteria.

KEY POINTS

4. Confusion Among Owners ?

? One partner (Winn) says another partner (MacFarlane) is an owner, but MacFarlane says it is not involved at all.
? One partner (Winn) is unaware of who the real owner (Stockbridge) is.
? One owner (MacFarlane) denies the involvement that another owner (Winn) says is continuing.
? The latest owner (Stockbridge) refuses to comment.

These are characteristics of a failed project.

5. New Owner?s role ? After CalPERS-CUIP terminated MacFarlane?s contract in October 2009, Stockbridge bought the proposal, making it the tenth organization to lay claim to revenues and profits from Columbus Center, which is now in its 15th year of being re-proposed.

The new owner?s line of business tells it all: Stockbridge focuses on opportunistic leveraging of failed projects.

As recently as January 2008, Stockbridge employed 85 in-house investment and development professionals. Today, however, Stockbridge?s owners often answer their own phones, and the firm?s 1-page web site says only, ?Our Web site is coming soon . . .? (www.SBFund.com).

That makes Columbus Center?s ultimate prognosis grimmer than ever, not just because the original venture never was able to succeed, and not just because it keeps changing hands (Winn ➜ California-CUIP-MacFarlane; then California-CUIP-MacFarlane ➜ Beal-Related; then Beal-Related ➜ Stockbridge), but because the newest owner, Stockbridge, appears to be as resource-starved as the failed projects in which it specializes.

 

[ablarc]

Re: Columbus Center

Is Ned starting to make sense?

Or did he all along, and we never noticed?

I still wish someone would build this thing; scar needs plastic surgery.

 

[PlanBoston]

Re: Columbus Center

Is Ned starting to make sense?

Or did he all along, and we never noticed?

I still wish someone would build this thing; scar needs plastic surgery.

He just decided to make rational points this time. Even if an excellent plan were proposed, Ned would be there making sure it doesn't ever get built.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

My guess is that but for 9/11, there might have been enough market froth to fund this project. It is no coincidence that the decade of the 00's was one of the worst in the last 100 years.

I believe this project will not be built in the next 20 years, if ever. (I hope I am wrong.) When money becomes available for financing, it will chase the easiest to build, lowest cost, most profitible opportunities. Any of our readers could name 5 spots in 10 seconds.

Public subsidy is the only thing that would help a developer to make back points in a deal. Even if the political will remains, which I doubt, that subsidy money isn't there, and won't be for a long time.

To sum up, the social and profit motives that get things built are missing. Fail. Flunk out.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Columbus Center

You mean 9/11/08, right?

 

[sidewalks]

Re: Columbus Center

Exactly^

I'm not going to debate Ned about this issue, but if this project had been approved in 2003 or 2004 I think it would have been built.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

You mean 9/11/08, right?

No. There were projects ready to go in 2001 that had funding yanked right after 9/11/01. By the time financing reappeared 2 or 3 years later, constuction commenced and they were completed just in time for today's market. They sit with large vacancy rates, some are auction block fodder, and most will be a drag on the market for some time to come.

But for 9/11/01, there might have been enough liquidity and consumer exuberance for a winning gamble on a project like Columbus Center.

 

[czsz]

Re: Columbus Center

You mean to tell me the terrorists destroyed this tower, too!? Bastards.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Columbus Center

Collateral damage from the altered economic wave frequency.