Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

^^^^^

Does Cambridge Mass give out these types of Taxpayer Packages for the Biotech companies to build or any other type of building developments?
 
^^^^^

Does Cambridge Mass give out these types of Taxpayer Packages for the Biotech companies to build or any other type of building developments?

San Francisco does.
In addition to tax increment generated in Mission Bay South, a Community Facilities District was established in Mission Bay South to fund public improvements. CFD No. 6 was established in 2000 and is authorized to issue up to $200 million in bonds for infrastructure and other improvements in Mission Bay South.

Massachusetts does, Republican governors.
Massachusetts made good on its promise to the New England Patriots and approved $70 million to help build a new stadium for the NFL team in Foxborough. The money will be used for infrastructure work around the new stadium. Owner Robert Kraft will fund the $285 million stadium itself.

There is a long-established roadway grid and utility infrastructure in place in Cambridge.
 
^stellarfun

1. Your SF example seems to be focused on improving a district, not a 21 acre private parcel of land. The Seaport benefits from $8 billion in taxpayer improvements to the land and environs. It's never enough to get a shovel in the ground.

2. I don't think the Patriots infrastructure improved his property. It improved the public highway exits and access roads to the stadium, owned by the public. Correct? I'm sure people will argue, "What's the difference?" and then we can ask the taxpayer to finance the plazas and fountains and maybe any interior public/civic spaces in private buildings as well.
 
The Boston Garden is built on top of a platform built for them by the state saving the owners a lot of money.
 
I suspect the public needed to build an underground network of tracks for North Station. Capping that would be a necessity. Correct me if any of the above is wrong.

I'm surprised how many people see private property owners as a poor bunch of handicapped losers who can't build without a constant stream of low-cost loans, bonds, zoning variances, tax breaks and public works projects. One would at least expect the outcome to look like a Metropolitan utopia. It's laughable.
 
PS. On the topic of corporate welfare, how would people feel about the Boston Chamber of Commerce asking its members to chip in and pay for the T5 Boston Convention Center expansion. Or maybe a tax on 1% of profits of all Boston corporations.

After all, the Chamber is among the biggest cheerleaders for public works projects in the Seaport, why not step up to the plate and show some leadership instead of a tin cup?
 
It would be wrong to tax all corporations in the city for a project which only benefits those which host industry conventions. The GBCoC should be asking its membership for donations.
 
I believe there are only two big corporations still headquartered in Boston (and even one of them is sliding stuff into NH because its advantageous from a tax standpoint to do so). The rest have left, because of mergers, greener pastures elsewhere, whatever. (And this is why new towers for commercial tenants aren't being built, and probably will only be rarely built in Boston in the future.)

And with all the sanctimony and wringing of hands, maybe Bostonians ought to repay the Federal government and the Federal taxpayer for the tens of millions the Federal government spent on infrastructure for the Charlestown Navy Yard for the benefit of the BRA and developers.
 
Most of Boston's tax base is no longer supporting infrastructure, maintenance, or basic city services. It's going towards compensation and benefits of city employees. There's no money left over to do much else. It's a big reason why Menino has been in favor of luxury tower projects. The tax revenue generated by them doesn't require much if anything from city services and helps stave off the inevitable collapse of the overgenerous underfunded patronage machine. Boston isn't unique in this regard. Most older cities in the US have fallen into this same politically and financially sustainable racket.

Fan Pier and the Seaport is a part of a last hurrah to carry the machine into Menino's retirement. The BRA gets the area built out and occupied by any means necessary and uses the tax revenue to float along just a little while longer.

Honestly look at the vacancy rates downtown versus Back Bay. Does anyone really think yet another central business district adjacent to the current ailing one is going to be a long term benefit to the city? Businesses are already relocating themselves around Back Bay because that's now the healthy core of the city. Whom is really going to want to relocate to some far flung bastion separated by a dead financial district in the long run?

I fear we are looking at something worse than a Kendal Square redux. More like a commercial West End meets Las Vegas office parks.
 
I think you're hitting on some key points regarding patronage and development "by any means necessary."

Something very strange is going on.

Summer Street and Congress Street passing through the "Innovation District" have been falling apart for 10 years. The sidewalks are all pitched 5-10 degrees walking between the BCEC and South Station. Streetlights all the way down Summer Street have been in disrepair. And the BRA spent 3 years hosting meetings on a "Crossroads Initiative" to create vibrant public streets and café style sidewalks -- and then claimed last year they had NO FUNDING FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

But somehow we have money to throw at private property on Fan Pier. And all the usual suspects back public a bottomless cup of taxpayer investment thrown at a 21 acre parcel. NOT A PEEP ABOUT THE CRUMBLING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
 
I believe there are only two big corporations still headquartered in Boston (and even one of them is sliding stuff into NH because its advantageous from a tax standpoint to do so). The rest have left, because of mergers, greener pastures elsewhere, whatever. (And this is why new towers for commercial tenants aren't being built, and probably will only be rarely built in Boston in the future.)

And with all the sanctimony and wringing of hands, maybe Bostonians ought to repay the Federal government and the Federal taxpayer for the tens of millions the Federal government spent on infrastructure for the Charlestown Navy Yard for the benefit of the BRA and developers.

We're a donner state, it's time the Feds start giving us our share
 
Last edited:
We're a donna state, it's time the Feds start giving us our share
That's true about paying more to the Feds than receiving in turn. I believe NJ gets screwed the most.
________________

The infrastructure monies going to Fan Pier are from the state, not the city. The city becomes liable if the state doesn't get enough new tax money from the new buildings (and occupants) on Fan Pier to finance the cost of the infrastructure investment; the city has to make up the shortfall. (There is no true free lunch in this equation.)

The failure of the city to maintain the infrastructure its responsible for parallels Menino's profound dis-interest in having the city take ownership of the Greenway. The city can't afford to own it. And the city's inability to maintain green space far antecedes Menino and has been discussed before.
 
I believe there are only two big corporations still headquartered in Boston (and even one of them is sliding stuff into NH because its advantageous from a tax standpoint to do so). The rest have left, because of mergers, greener pastures elsewhere, whatever. (And this is why new towers for commercial tenants aren't being built, and probably will only be rarely built in Boston in the future.)

And with all the sanctimony and wringing of hands, maybe Bostonians ought to repay the Federal government and the Federal taxpayer for the tens of millions the Federal government spent on infrastructure for the Charlestown Navy Yard for the benefit of the BRA and developers.

Let's see if we can make a count of major corporations headquartered in Boston:

(in no particular order except mostly alphabetically)

1) Fidelity Investments -- not going anywhere from P.O. Sq.
2) Putnum Investments
3) American Tower
4) Au Bon Pain
5) Bain & Company & Bain Capital
6) Bentley Motors (U.S. headquarters)
7) Boston Consulting Group
8) The Gillette Company, div of Procter & Gamble
9) Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
10) John Hancock Financial Services, Inc, the United States division of Canada's Manulife Financial
11) Liberty Mutual
12) New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
13) Sonesta International Hotels Corp.
14) State Street Corporation
15) Wayfair
16) Zipcar
17) Vertex Phamaeuticals (not quite yet)
18) Boston Brewing -- Sam Adams Beer
19) Boston Red Sox
20) Boston Celtics
21) Legal Sea Foods
22) Partners Healthcare -- Mass General, Brig & Womens, etc.
23) Boston University
24) NSTAR
25) Blue Cross Blue Shield

there are quite a few more who employ over 1000 people and are either a Hq (absolute), a North American or US Hq, or divisional Hq (such as Gillete)
 
These kind of subsidies are essentially just a local government bidding war. Without them, companies would go somewhere more willing to subsidize their developments. We can argue all day about the state of the system and never come to anywhere close to a resolution, but I think the real question is: Is it worth it? Does the city get enough back for its investment or would you prefer to lose these companies? It is easy to say that development should not be done this way, but having Boston stop would not make any other city stop.
 
Doesn't Sovereign/Santander now have their NA Headquarters in Boston?

Boston is no different from cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. where we have massive issues in terms of bloated government worker benefits and some rough infrastructure.


It's going to be interesting to see what happens 15-20 years down the line to these "new" cities that continue to add more freeways and widen their existing ones.
 
State St and Fidelity are the only two companies that I consider big, and headquartered in Boston. Even after it moves, Vertex would need to dramatically increase its revenue to qualify as 'big'.
 
These kind of subsidies are essentially just a local government bidding war. Without them, companies would go somewhere more willing to subsidize their developments. We can argue all day about the state of the system and never come to anywhere close to a resolution, but I think the real question is: Is it worth it? Does the city get enough back for its investment or would you prefer to lose these companies? It is easy to say that development should not be done this way, but having Boston stop would not make any other city stop.

The reality is these projects that need to be subsidize shouldn't be built.
For Example.
The city of Boston relocated Vertex from Cambridge Ma with 71 Million dollars in Tax Subsidiaries. Then the city of Boston Implements BID in the downtown area because they can't afford to maintain the area without extra funds.
The city is stealing from the companies that are well managed and giving to projects that make no economic sense. Which will make the successful companies from actually expanding their operations because of more taxes.

The only time private development projects need to be considered for tax subsidaries is if the developer runs into a safety issue that is so out of control and could cause problems for public safety.



Giving Taxpayers money to Fan Pier and Liberty Mutual, W-Hotel and then the city implements new taxes.
#1 BID
#2 Non-Profits
#3 Greeenway Taxes

The total of the Tax subsidaries is over 125 Million dollars for those projects.
Don't forget the BCEC for 300 Million taxpayers dollars....This will be demoralizing for the working class.
They are taking hardworking capital from companies that are successful that could expand and create real jobs then giving their friends handouts to create something that really does not sustain over the Long-term.

That is why Govt Stimulus packages DON'T WORK. It's just a way for the politicans to ROB the working class and payoff the unions that voted for them. You can't give a private company tax subsidaries then create new taxes because the city is having trouble maintaining the areas. They are forcing the successful companies to areas like Rhode Island because the city is gaming the system against them.

So can somebody answer this question?

How can you justify giving tax breaks to certain developments when the city of Boston is trying to create new Tax methods?
 
Last edited:
State St and Fidelity are the only two companies that I consider big, and headquartered in Boston. Even after it moves, Vertex would need to dramatically increase its revenue to qualify as 'big'.

Don't forget Liberty Mutual. Their revenues are bigger than the two you listed, combined, and is by far the biggest MA company listed on the Fortune 500.
 
That is not "the reality," it is your opinion.



Again, no numbers, no sources, no facts. Typing in upper-case does not make something true.

Also, the word you're looking for is subsidies. I think you may be trying to combine subsidy with subsidiary, but these are two entirely different things.

Typing in upper-case does not make something true. TRUE


Answer this question: How do you give projects tax subsidies but then create additional taxes on areas that are suffering from vacancy around 20%?

This is nothing more than additional taxes on business's that have survived an economic recession.
BID
Greenway Fees
Non-Profits

But the city is giving tax breaks to Liberty Mutual to expand?

You can't have it both ways.........
These are FACTS!
 

Back
Top