Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

The money is going for public infrastructure associated with the new buildings, not the new buildings themselves.
 
stellarfun said:
The money is going for public infrastructure associated with the new buildings, not the new buildings themselves.
Click to expand...

So that means the taxpayer should provide Public infrastucture for every project being built? Why should Fallon get tax subsidaries but other developers get nothing.


A release from the office of Lieutenant Gov. Timothy Murray stated that the Innovative Infrastructure Investment (I-Cubed) program will dole out the $50 million to “support public infrastructure improvements at Fan Pier – primarily streets, sidewalks, and public parks – as well as to “support the construction of Fan Pier’s second and third office buildings

Read the bold statement........I'm assuming we are helping him build the infrastructure to the second and third building.

This developer will stretch out that 71 Million dollars to the extreme. Mayor Menino office likes to complain about taxpayer handouts and developers paying too much for sites. We'll this is a perfect example. Just a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn't the city subsidize infrastructure? The creation of streets on Fallon's land amount to a taking, he shouldn't have to not only give up the land but then also build things dictated by the city. This seems perfectly normal and appropriate to me.
 
^stellarfun

Public investment in the upgrade of private property -- even if the amenities are public -- is an issue.

The claims made publicly at the time Pritzker secured approvals for upwards of 3 million square feet of new density on Fan Pier, years before they flipped the vacant property to the next owner, was that the zoning changes to support additional density were necessary to overcome the hardship of developing the public amenity package.

Whether or not the site should host 3 million square feet of new construction, or whether those projects need more public investment, are not the issue.

The issue is that the owner appealed to the City of Boston and secured variances based on showing a proforma which described a generous public amenity package. Then they took the pre-approved project and sold it at a profit. Then the new owner gets the public amenity package paid for by the taxpayer.

The process is a joke, and the implications of numerous precedents for public investment in the upgrade of private property on the Seaport are mindblowing -- especially considering the large number of "kick-start" public projects already paid for.

^^HenryAlan

Does the article state Fallon is giving up the land to the City? I didn't catch that.
 
You don't think the republican tea bagger states don't do this too!!!!! If we didn't offer incentives they would have built out of state. Simple fact. There had been a court challenge to stop states from using incentives to lure businesses from another state. I don't know what happened to the court case.
 
Infrastructure upgrades required to support the development are the responsibility of the utility companies. The water company either will provide a larger grid in the area, or let them know ahead of time whether the system can support the build out. Same with power, drainage, sewer, gas, etc. Upgrading the infrastructure is not the developers responsibility unless explicitly included as part of the purchase and proposed use of the land.

Typically side walks and whatnot should be the developers responsibility, because they have to all be torn up etc. to install new utilities. This isn't the case at Fan Pier, as nothing exists. Not sure who should really pay for it, but I would think Fallon, since he owns the entire parcel. So I agree that this shouldn't come from public money, as Fallon should have always included this in his development plan.

Support utility infrastructure improvements would be by the utility (Edison, NStar, BWSC, MWRA, etc.) and much of this would come ultimately from public money.
 
BostonObserver said:
You don't think the [republican tea .... states] don't do this too!!!!! If we didn't offer incentives they would have built out of state....
Click to expand...

BosOb -- the competition is not the what you refer to as '"tea... states" (e.g. Texas) -- nor is it even the "blue-as-they-come" backrupt spendthrift states such as California

No -- the competition is from places such as Singapore -- where they have a few hundred acres devoted to bio-pharma all permitted, ready to go and located about the same distance from the Marina Bay Sands complex as Meffa is from DTX

That's why Novartis created its R&D HQ in Cambridge after a global search not Basel or Singapore

PS: SPID doesn't quite have the cache of Kendall / MIT -- so the BRA had to sweeten the pot
 
This entire development process should be investigated by the FBI. This is not the best interest of Massachusetts taxpayers. This is the best interest for FALLON a private developer and his investors.

How did the taxpayer become part of the development process with Fallon and Vertex? Fallon had a choice to entice Vertex to relocate from Cambridge but for some reason he couldn't make it work without 70 Million dollars? How is that the Taxpayers problem? Fallon and his investors bought Fan Pier for a certain price? Fallon and investors paid too much for the site as the market conditions started to crash. His options in a free market would be
a Sell off the site
b Add more equity to the project
c Lower the rents to lock in Vertex
When did the process become........ pump up taxpayer funds and call them public infrastructure costs. It’s Stealing plain and simple.

And can we honestly say that at least if they are going to swindle almost 100 Million can you build something of significance for the city.
 
BostonObserver said:
We've lost companies to places as close as Rhode Island.
Click to expand...

The so-called losses are mfg, distribution type operations -- with fat subsidies from RI, etc.

When you are talking the cream of the crop in R&D and HQ's -- there are few competitors in the US and none locally

Boston / Cambridge has two big pluses (MiT & Harvard) and a bunch of smaller minuses
everybody else (possible execeotion of the other Cambridge and Oxford and one or two others) starts in 2nd place and has to try to crawl-up

BUT if the NIMBYs are to difficult to manage -- then Boston/Cambridge can lose

Today the bidding is for bio/pharma next it will be nano and the Internet of Things
 
whighlander said:
The so-called losses are mfg, distribution type operations -- with fat subsidies from RI, etc.

When you are talking the cream of the crop in R&D and HQ's -- there are few competitors in the US and none locally

Boston / Cambridge has two big pluses (MiT & Harvard) and a bunch of smaller minuses
everybody else (possible execeotion of the other Cambridge and Oxford and one or two others) starts in 2nd place and has to try to crawl-up

BUT if the NIMBYs are to difficult to manage -- then Boston/Cambridge can lose

Today the bidding is for bio/pharma next it will be nano and the Internet of Things
Click to expand...



Good post........MIT & HARVARD.....Have been the KEY to Cambridge and surrounding areas from keeping everything else looking like Detriot.

Now do you think the casinos are good idea? Education is the key and that is why Cambridge and Somerville transformation since the seventies through now have been unbelievable.
 
Sicilian said:
^^HenryAlan

Does the article state Fallon is giving up the land to the City? I didn't catch that.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that there will be public streets on his land. I may be mistaken about the legal status of streets, but I believe I've read in the past that they are public easements on private property (speaking generally, not just regarding Fan Pier). That means I own half of the street in front of my house, with the other half owned by the guy across from me. Likewise, Fallon owns the streets on Fan Pier. But because the city is the defacto owner, it is responsible for maintenance and repair. I would think the same rule applies for new streets.
 
Well, upgrades to "infrastructure" can be justified a lot of the time. How much of this $50 million is to "support construction" of buildings 2 and 3 is the real question!
 
JohnAKeith said:
Well, upgrades to "infrastructure" can be justified a lot of the time. How much of this $50 million is to "support construction" of buildings 2 and 3 is the real question!
Click to expand...

From the look of the first POS he built. I thought the entire construction would cost 50 Million.
 
TheRifleman said:
From the look of the first POS he built. I thought the entire construction would cost 50 Million.
Click to expand...

Riff -- I think we are talking 1 m sq. ft. and that quite a lot of it would be labs

If say there was 500 k sq. ft of labs that alone would be approaching 500 M$ fully tricked out
the office parts would cost less but I'm guessing for a global Hq the cost would be $300 + / sq. ft.

so that tends to suggest the two buildigs might cost around 800 M
 
HenryAlan said:
I was thinking that there will be public streets on his land. I may be mistaken about the legal status of streets, but I believe I've read in the past that they are public easements on private property (speaking generally, not just regarding Fan Pier). That means I own half of the street in front of my house, with the other half owned by the guy across from me. Likewise, Fallon owns the streets on Fan Pier. But because the city is the defacto owner, it is responsible for maintenance and repair. I would think the same rule applies for new streets.
Click to expand...

Henry,

I don't think that the typical subsurban land deal for a single family house includes anything beyond the easement tor the sidewalk

that means when the land is developed the developer might build the streets but then they are transfered to the city / town -- ie. the street is "accepted" -- with all future maintenace, trash pick-up, snow removal all the responsibilty of the city / town -- otherwise they are 'private roads" and they don't get any city/town services

I'm not sure what has been done with Fan Pier and Seaport Square -- however, I would suspect that the developer has contributed at least a long-term lease to the city for the roads
 
HenryAlan said:
I was thinking that there will be public streets on his land. I may be mistaken about the legal status of streets, but I believe I've read in the past that they are public easements on private property (speaking generally, not just regarding Fan Pier). That means I own half of the street in front of my house, with the other half owned by the guy across from me. Likewise, Fallon owns the streets on Fan Pier. But because the city is the defacto owner, it is responsible for maintenance and repair. I would think the same rule applies for new streets.
Click to expand...

Private streets with a public easement are not public streets, nor are they city streets. I'm not going into a lengthy discussion about the differences, because I don't think people care.

Fan Pier was upzoned entirely based on the private investment committed to the public amenity package. Then the owner flipped the upzoned package. Again, I'm not going to get into a diatribe again -- if people think the taxpayer should fund public plazas on every corporate headquarter building in Boston, so be it.

Let me just state that large corporate interests and so-called free-market advocacy groups quietly enrich their private coffers with public dollars year after year. It's discouraging because they don't even invest top dollar in the architecture and construction of the pieces they (finally) agree to build with private $$$.
 
For the uninformed, this is basically a loan, not a grant.

  • The public infrastructure improvements for a certified economic development project will be financed with bonds issued by MassDevelopment
  • The debt service on the MassDevelopment bonds will be payable from Commonwealth contract assistance payments secured by a general obligation pledge of the Commonwealth
  • During construction of the project, the Municipality will levy assessments on the developer’s property within the economic development district to reimburse the Commonwealth for the debt service cost
  • Once a commercial component of a certified economic development project is occupied and generating new state tax revenue, the debt service on the bonds related to that commercial component will be payable by the Commonwealth
  • If the new state tax revenues [from the project] are insufficient to cover the related debt service on the bonds, the Municipality will be required to reimburse the Commonwealth for the amount of the shortfall
  • The developer may agree to allow the Municipality to assess the property to reimburse it for the amount of any shortfall payment it makes to the Commonwealth
Click to expand...
The infrastructure is not just streets, sidewalks, and utilities such as sewers, but parks, and expanding the Harborwalk is costly in an era of rising sea levels. And dollars to donuts, the combined sewers in that area were never corrected, so a new sewer grid possibly needs to be built.
 
And here are the stumps that were upzoned from M-4 zoning based on the private owner stating over a multi-year process that they were entirely responsible for constructing streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc.:

s6MED.gif


These stumps trumped far more interesting plans by teams including Urban Strategies of Toronto. The hardship case won the day. As it wins the day today.

We're setting a precedent now for the taxpayer financing Seaport Square and every other private street with a public easement. You might as well include all of Fort Point since every street except for Congress Street, A Street, Melcher and Summer is private.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top