jdrinboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 670
- Reaction score
- 557
That is the entire problem with you GOVT hacks. Your trying to justify and determine what the valuation is on these properties in reality the markets decide what the valuation is on a asset (supply & demand). But because we have so much corruption going on in GOVT & Federal Reserve Bank (the Govt spending is completely out of control)
So to tell us on this board that the valuations of a particular asset on what it should and shouldn't sell for is price rigging by city officials. This is what is supressing development in the city of Boston also with all its bullshit height restrictions which really should only be determined by the FAA. This is the city of Boston we should have highrises around 800 to 1000ft.
Zero/Sum Game. So knowing the Financial district is almost 15% vacant and struggle to fill in the supply, Rents continue to remain stagnant.
In reality the Fan Pier situation:
Massachusetts Taxpayer Perspective/Business owner in the city of Boston
Fallon a private developer who buys Fan Pier and trys to create jobs by recruiting a tenant. This is the private developer job to entice a tenant to rent your building not the taxpayers.
A. Vertex no matter what will stay in Mass and expand which continues to pay its taxes
or B. Read my Ace in the Hole Shirley Kressel Below.
How you like them APPLES?
I realize this is becoming off topic, so I will keep this brief. I read by Ms. Kressel's editorial. I also went to the source and read the legislation regarding the I-Cube subsidy. It is a subsidy for the entire $3 billion Fan Pier project, and not just Vertex, as is framed is Ms. Kressel's article. The state funding must be used for roads, parks, sewers, and other public accomodations. You don't know me, but if you were to ask anyone who did, they would tell you I've been consistent in my blunt opposition to private developers funding any sort of public accomodation (roads, parks etc.) I think its a slippery slope and when any sort of large investment is being made by private enterprise, I think its fair for governments to pay for accomodations that will be used by the general public, whether linked to the specific development or not. (The only exception to this would be a newly created road in a suburban subdivision. There is really no public incentive to create single family homes in the burbs)
Unfortunately, the state and city are playing hot potato with who would cover the shortfalls, should they occur. (There is afterall, a chance they won't). But that's more a symptom of dysfunctional government than Fallon or Vertex.
And for the record, I do not work for any government agency nor have I ever. I did cover state and local government for a newspaper in Connecticut for a few years, so I do know my way around government operations and legislation. I am not a Hack. I just disagree with your framing of the argument.
P.S. It's very easy for you and Ms. Kressel to say these companies would never have relocated. At this point, there is virtually no risk of you being wrong.