Fenway Center (One Kenmore) | Turnpike Parcel 7, Beacon Street | Fenway

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

. . . Anyone know Marty Walz's phone number? I want to call her to find out where she'll be protesting the use of state and city money for this project, just like she did on Columbus Center. I mean, she must be against it and willing to go to extremes to stop it, just like she did with Columbus Center . . .

Original Position: endorsing subsidies._ You wrote on your web site that you are both a seller?s broker and a buyer?s broker (16 April 2008), and you wrote an editorial saying ?John Keith is . . . a real estate broker; read his blog at bostonREB.com? (South End News, 15 August 2008)._ While a broker, you argued long and hard for public subsidies to build private projects that would pay large broker commissions.

Reversal #1:_ opposing subsidies._ But then while running for state representative, you wrote, ?I am not a real estate agent or real estate broker? (Columbus Center thread, 7 January 2009)._ On 30 January 2009, you wrote, ?I?m on record as saying I don?t like public subsidies of any sort._ I wrote about it on my blog and wrote about it in the South End News.?

Reversal #2:_ endorsing subsidies._ On 16 January 2009, during your campaign, you wrote, ?Columbus Center is going to get money from the federal government and there?s nothing Marty Walz and her gang of fools can do about it!?_ But her constituents proved that no subsidies were justified, and proved that the project was ineligible, so no federal subsidies were granted._ Those constituents are quite effective, and not fools at all.

Reversal #3:_ opposing subsidies._ While campaigning, you continued telling voters who were not part of the development industry gravy train that you opposed public subsidies to private projects, especially Columbus Center._ You wrote on 24 February 2009, ?I?m a fan of Columbus Center._ Without subsidies, of course.?

Reversal #4:_ endorsing subsidies._ After losing the election, you reversed yourself again, and now have resumed endorsing public subsidies to private developers.

Reversal #5:_ opposing subsidies._ You wrote that you endorse ?good government? (italics yours), which requires you to reverse yourself a 5th time, back to opposing public subsidies for private profiteers.

You told two groups of voters ? subsidy-loving developers and subsidy-hating taxpayers ? two different things, just to get votes._ That may explain the motto on your web site:_ ?Set low expectations, then exceed them.?_ It?s no surprise that Rep. Michlewitz got 80% of the votes cast.

As a ?good government? politician who regularly posts on public web sites, please confirm:

1. Do you now support or oppose public subsidies to private projects?
2. Under what circumstances?
3. What is the maximum amount taxpayers should pay into one private project?
4. What is the maximum amount one taxpayer should pay into all projects every year?
5. Why?

When you wrote under the name John Keith, ?I don?t need to ?hide? behind pen names to act like a juvenile? you had already posted 931 forum messages signed ?Jimbo Jones.?_ What are voters to think of the posts by Jimbo Jones, and the subsequent switch to John Keith?

You wrote on 28 January 2009 that ?there are two (or more) ?John Keiths? who are real estate agents in the Commonwealth.?_ How do voters tell the difference among all these Jimbos and Johns?

 

[blade_bltz]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Wait, who the hell still puts two spaces after a period?

NO CREDIBILITY.

 

[jass]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Wait, who the hell still puts two spaces after a period?

NO CREDIBILITY.

Seriously. The two spaces were because of the way typewriters work. That age is over.

 

[choo]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

I always put two spaces, and I am of the age where I never had to use a typewriter. Why? because it adds up over the course of a ten-page paper

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Anyone else want to argue with the dining room table?

Ned, John has been 100% consistent on this issue, at all times. You quote references where convenient and leave them out where convenient. It's libelous at worst, juvenile at best.

His question was whether Martha Walz shares a consistent point of view on this stuff or changes her mind when a project is in her backyard. A simple question.

I don't think anyone could expect the dining room table to give a good answer.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

As of today, still no response from Madame Walz.

 

[bostonbred]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Iam asusaul agreeling with evrythings Mr. Ned F. are saying. But HERE Iam saying that Mr. JFK is RIGHT, so perhaps Mr. Ned got confuzed hear and should be saying the sorry words. So, Ms. Rep. Waltz SHOULD be calling to talk to Mr F at dining room tabel for meal and drink. I am thinking Mr. JFK worked hard to be rep., and Iam supporting him ALL THE WAY HEAR!!! OPEN YOU'RE EARS TO HIS EMBRACE MS. WALTZ!!!

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Original Position: endorsing subsidies._ You wrote on your web site that you are both a seller’s broker and a buyer’s broker (16 April 2008), and you wrote an editorial saying “John Keith is . . . a real estate broker; read his blog at bostonREB.com” (South End News, 15 August 2008)._ While a broker, you argued long and hard for public subsidies to build private projects that would pay large broker commissions.

Reversal #1:_ opposing subsidies._ But then while running for state representative, you wrote, “I am not a real estate agent or real estate broker” (Columbus Center thread, 7 January 2009)._ On 30 January 2009, you wrote, “I’m on record as saying I don’t like public subsidies of any sort._ I wrote about it on my blog and wrote about it in the South End News.”

Reversal #2:_ endorsing subsidies._ On 16 January 2009, during your campaign, you wrote, “Columbus Center is going to get money from the federal government and there’s nothing Marty Walz and her gang of fools can do about it!”_ But her constituents proved that no subsidies were justified, and proved that the project was ineligible, so no federal subsidies were granted._ Those constituents are quite effective, and not fools at all.

Reversal #3:_ opposing subsidies._ While campaigning, you continued telling voters who were not part of the development industry gravy train that you opposed public subsidies to private projects, especially Columbus Center._ You wrote on 24 February 2009, “I’m a fan of Columbus Center._ Without subsidies, of course.”

Reversal #4:_ endorsing subsidies._ After losing the election, you reversed yourself again, and now have resumed endorsing public subsidies to private developers.

Reversal #5:_ opposing subsidies._ You wrote that you endorse “good government” (italics yours), which requires you to reverse yourself a 5th time, back to opposing public subsidies for private profiteers.

You told two groups of voters — subsidy-loving developers and subsidy-hating taxpayers — two different things, just to get votes._ That may explain the motto on your web site:_ “Set low expectations, then exceed them.”_ It’s no surprise that Rep. Michlewitz got 80% of the votes cast.

As a “good government” politician who regularly posts on public web sites, please confirm:

1. Do you now support or oppose public subsidies to private projects?
2. Under what circumstances?
3. What is the maximum amount taxpayers should pay into one private project?
4. What is the maximum amount one taxpayer should pay into all projects every year?
5. Why?

When you wrote under the name John Keith, “I don’t need to ‘hide’ behind pen names to act like a juvenile” you had already posted 931 forum messages signed “Jimbo Jones.”_ What are voters to think of the posts by Jimbo Jones, and the subsequent switch to John Keith?

You wrote on 28 January 2009 that “there are two (or more) ‘John Keiths’ who are real estate agents in the Commonwealth.”_ How do voters tell the difference among all these Jimbos and Johns?

In "reversal" #1, you quoted him as saying “I am not a real estate agent or real estate broker” but I don't see those exact words anywhere in the post you are referring to, http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=67805&postcount=1549

So why do you have to lie just to make an off-topic ad hominem attack on Mr. Keith? This puts the credibility of your other statements on other threads into question.

"Reversals" #2-5 are not changes in position, just statements of fact. Since he is just stating a fact in "reversal" #2, and you have provided no evidence for "reversal" #4, "reversals" #3 and #5 are therefore negated. Plus your entire response was not related whatsoever to the question he posed.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Ned, thank you for your comments.

Regarding the name/handle issue, I can't say more than I (and others) already have. It's very common for people to use made-up names online to protect their privacy. I understand why you, as well as a lot of people in the world, see something wrong with this; I can understand it, I just don't agree. Most people on this forum already knew who I was because I mentioned my real estate blog or made other personally-identifiable comments.

I went from using a nom de plume to my real name when I began considering running for office. I wanted to take ownership of my comments since I was going to be a "public" figure. (* BTW, I also used to write under the IAMANGRY name on this board.)

The issue of "is he/isn't he" a real estate agent / broker is not worthy of any argument. I am a licensed real estate broker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My license was last issued (I think) in 2006; it goes for four years (I think). Currently, I am a real estate agent under Ford Realty; an agent cannot be a "broker" if he/she works under another broker's license.

What I was trying to say during the campaign was that I wasn't a "practicing" real estate agent/broker, that I was a full-time candidate (although I continued to write about real estate for the Boston Real Estate Blog (which I haven't owned since October 2008, btw)). I wanted to make clear that any opinions I had were based on my personal beliefs, not out of any financial gain I might receive.

During the campaign, I did in fact close a deal, much to my surprise. It was a friend who wanted to buy in the South End.

I don't believe that I would get enough business from the Columbus Center (or Fenway Center, for that matter) that I support it for personal gain. As my 398 (now, 399) posts here show (as well as my ... 931?? posts as Jimbo Jones), I've always, always, been a fan of development in the city, something I did not shy away from during the campaign, where I supported (much to the chagrin of Waterfront voters) both the Chiofaro project (although, shorter than proposed) and the Congress St Garage project (as proposed).

I never told two different groups of voters two different things. What you say doesn't jibe with reality. I don't believe I've ever said I wanted a subsidy for Columbus Center, on this forum, on my blog, or anywhere, for that matter.

I did find State Senator Dianne Wilkerson's comment that, "Many projects get public money, let's be honest!" to be true and made me consider the idea more seriously. As she pointed out, the state paid for much of the infrastructure costs to remake Route 1 when Patriot Place was built. The state does a lot to help a lot. (See, for example, the latest proposal for Fenway Center, ahem.) I see no reason, as a rule, for private developers to get public money. Perhaps when it is for the public portion of a private project; say, for example, the MBTA / commuter rail rehab at Fenway).

1) I never ever argued long and hard for public subsidies as a real estate agent. Just never happened!

2) I was mocking Marty Walz when the state/feds proposed giving money to Columbus Center. Nowhere in that post did I say anything about my personal views on the issue. In fact, I think I have always maintained that the project should be done without subsidy.

3) I have not changed back to supporting public subsidies of private projects. I can understand why you might think so because of the way I write, but I don't.

Having said that, I don't know what I would think about any future project. I guess it would be a case-by-case basis. I assume a healthy economy would resolve much of this. But, it will probably always come up. I don't think a private developer should have to pay so much, the other way, giving up so much in "community benefits" when it builds a project. Why should John Rosenthal offer to pay for a new commuter rail station and why should the people at North Point have to pay for a new Lechmere station (well, in that case, they should because they were the ones that wanted it on the other side of the street).

Your mean-spirited swipe at me by saying "this is why your opponent got 80% of the vote" is most-vulgar. Shame on you. I worked very hard on this campaign and spent $30,000 of my own money (putting myself in serious hock, something you can relate to) in an effort to express my views and to present what I thought were great ideas for the future of our city. Hardest of all was disclosing very personal, private information about myself in order to show that I was honest and sincere in all I said and did.

If my mother was still alive, she'd kick your ass. If my father was still alive, he'd hold you down while she did it.

Mr Michlewitz received 2000 votes, many of which came from the North End (his hometown) and from Chinatown, where he had strong ties and the support of the Chinatown Residents Association. He also had the support of the Mayor and the Democratic Party. Tough odds. Many of Aaron's votes came from people who voted in the primary. I received 407. I did well in the South End; in one precinct I got 37% of the vote to his 50%, which I took as a personal victory.

I knew it would be a difficult race precisely because I have been a strong supporter of development. I support it because it is necessary if our city is going to do well and it is also a reflection of the strength of our city. When the Filene's building, Fenway Center, and other projects are built, it will mean we are moving forward, expanding.

I believe I lost because of my views (which I never backed away from); others believe it was because of my opponent's connections, his prodigious fundraising ability, and because I didn't run as a Democrat.

I don't know why you mention "voters". I am a private citizen now, there will be no voters in my future. At least that's what my boyfriend says.

P.S. Regarding the two "John Keiths"; the reason I wrote that entry was because I had just found out the other one was about to be named as a "donor" in the Dianne Wilkerson bribery case and wanted to make clear I wasn't in on the scheme.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

John,

For what it is worth, I think your run was admirable. The defeat had nothing to do with you, your effort or your beliefs. The victor was a machine connected politician ( I do not say that pejoratively). We were the losers.

Joe Moakley once told me: "Toby, politics isn't like college football where you have to go 10-0 to get to the bowl game and the trophy. You can go 1 and 9, and still be the champ."

It's tough to be the "significant other" in an election. So pass Joe's words of wisdom on to the squeeze, and don't give up.

Toby

 

[FSUViking]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

I'm surprised Ned doesn't put his address, phone number, height, weight, banks account number, and blood type on his signature. I guess privacy and anonymity on the Internet means nothing to some people. Put it all out there on the table!

 

[FSUViking]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

banks account number,

Aw, crap. He's probably going to lecture me about typos carrying world wide consequences and how they start wars and other ridiculous shit.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

In "reversal" #1, you quoted him as saying ?I am not a real estate agent or real estate broker? but I don't see those exact words anywhere in the post you are referring to . . .

Go to Columbus Center thread.
Go to post #1549 on 7 January 2009.
Go to paragraph #2.
Go to sentence #3.
It starts with the same words that I quoted: ?I am not a real estate agent or real estate broker?.

. . . you have provided no evidence for "reversal" #4 . . .

To see evidence for reversal #4, read my post immediately following this one.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Thank you, John, for the detailed reply. To your credit, you sometimes oppose taxpayer-funded bail-outs to private firms, but then to your discredit, you also sometimes favor them. That?s why I outlined several instances of each, hoping for clarification.

I don't believe I've ever said I wanted a subsidy for Columbus Center, on this forum, on my blog, or anywhere, for that matter.

Yes, you did. For 8 years, managers proposed Columbus Center as subsidy-free, and then after it was approved they quietly sought 19 (so far) public subsidies worth $605 million (so far). These managers set a state record for one project seeking taxpayer-funded bail-outs. Their scheme was uncovered in 2005, and taxpayer objections have continued ever since.

And, while the subsidy controversy was raging, you wrote in post #1135 on 12 July 2008, ?I defend this project unilaterally? and in post #1256 on 21 August 2008, ?I support the project. It?s that simple.?

Thus, you endorsed, without qualification, the use of hundreds of millions in subsidies. People remembered your unwavering, unilateral support as arguments for public subsidies while also holding a broker?s license and/or working as a real estate agent.

I was mocking Marty Walz when the state/feds proposed giving money to Columbus Center.

Mocking, like sarcasm, is rarely as clear to readers as it seems to writers. Consequently, it was impossible to tell whether you support taxpayer-funded bail-outs to private projects, so that prompted my inquiry. Actually, it?s still impossible, because today you say you have not switched back to supporting public subsidies of private projects but then follow that statement with . . .

? You are ?considering the idea more seriously.?
? You think ?it depends upon ?a healthy economy.?
? You admit you ?don?t know what to think about any future project.?
? You wrote ?I guess it would be a case-by-case basis.?

There?s not necessarily anything wrong with being middle-of-the-road, or with being undecided, but the maybe/maybe-not opinions above further contradict your opinions in which you opposed subsidies as well as your opinions in which you favored them.

I don't know why you mention "voters". I am a private citizen now, there will be no voters in my future.

I mentioned ?voters? because on 10 August 2009, you wrote on your campaign blog, ?Although I was not victorious in my first run for elected office, I am staying involved in politics.? And on 24 August you wrote, ?donations are still be [sic] accepted by the Committee to Elect John A Keith.?

A politician who calls his only campaign his ?first run? ? and who says ?I am staying involved in politics? ? and who keeps seeking donations ? is, by definition, a politician intending to run again. People who won?t seek future votes don?t say such things. Hence the questions about voters.

 

[palindrome]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Yes, you did. For 8 years, managers proposed Columbus Center as subsidy-free, and then after it was approved they quietly sought 19 (so far) public subsidies worth $605 million (so far). These managers set a state record for one project seeking taxpayer-funded bail-outs. Their scheme was uncovered in 2005, and taxpayer objections have continued ever since.

And, while the subsidy controversy was raging, you wrote in post #1135 on 12 July 2008, ?I defend this project unilaterally? and in post #1256 on 21 August 2008, ?I support the project. It?s that simple.?

Thus, you endorsed, without qualification, the use of hundreds of millions in subsidies. People remembered your unwavering, unilateral support as arguments for public subsidies while also holding a broker?s license and/or working as a real estate agent.

I have never once heard a figure for the subsidy being as high as $605million, could you please post some semblance of a citation (even if its a link to one of your posts in the columbus center thread.)

Mocking, like sarcasm, is rarely as clear to readers as it seems to writers. Consequently, it was impossible to tell whether you support taxpayer-funded bail-outs to private projects, so that prompted my inquiry. Actually, it?s still impossible, because today you say you have not switched back to supporting public subsidies of private projects but then follow that statement with . . .

? You are ?considering the idea more seriously.?
? You think ?it depends upon ?a healthy economy.?
? You admit you ?don?t know what to think about any future project.?
? You wrote ?I guess it would be a case-by-case basis.?

There?s not necessarily anything wrong with being middle-of-the-road, or with being undecided, but the maybe/maybe-not opinions above further contradict your opinions in which you opposed subsidies as well as your opinions in which you favored them.

This paragraph contradicts itself. He made the statement that "it would be a case-by-case basis" qualifying his view that in some instances, depending on the circumstances he might favor them. In others he might not.

Furthermore, I think the sarcasm was only lost on you. I cannot speak for any other member here, but knowing the background story of the columbus center, it was clear to me that John was being sarcastic.

I mentioned ?voters? because on 10 August 2009, you wrote on your campaign blog, ?Although I was not victorious in my first run for elected office, I am staying involved in politics.? And on 24 August you wrote, ?donations are still be [sic] accepted by the Committee to Elect John A Keith.?

A politician who calls his only campaign his ?first run? ? and who says ?I am staying involved in politics? ? and who keeps seeking donations ? is, by definition, a politician intending to run again. People who won?t seek future votes don?t say such things. Hence the questions about voters.

In his previous post John declared that his campaign set him back a significant amount of personal money. Perhaps he is just trying to recoup costs. Remaining active in politics is as simple as writing you elected officials. It is foolish to assume John's next political move.

Ned, i really don't understand why you are attacking John. He is one of the best members on this forum, as well as contributes a great deal to other Boston oriented sites as well (UniversalHub). I really am growing tired of your robotic negative personality.

Moderators, could you please move the last 4-5 posts into a new thread or something. I would really hate to see this turn in to Columbus Center post #2.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Hi. Ned, thanks. I have never made a statement (or felt) that the Columbus Center project deserved a hand-out. That you are able to somehow connect my support for the development with a subsidy is a line few others would draw. It illustrates very well how you process information, as we've seen you do, time and again, on this board, and elsewhere.

I cannot think of a project right now that I would support getting money. Having said that, the federal government is falling over itself to spend money; if so, wouldn't it make sense to grab some? We're not South Carolina, we don't have decline on <strike>principal</strike> principle. Was the W Hotel the best place to put some of the money? I don't know. To a certain extent, I don't care!

Your continued attempts to challenge my integrity are offensive.

I consider the matter closed.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Go to Columbus Center thread.
Go to post #1549 on 7 January 2009.
Go to paragraph #2.
Go to sentence #3.
It starts with the same words that I quoted: “I am not a real estate agent or real estate broker”.



To see evidence for reversal #4, read my post immediately following this one.

Misrepresenting the intent of his words by quoting a short passage out of context is akin to lying. Immediately after what you quoted, he said he is "someone with a real estate license." It seems that he has left real estate during the campaign, and has now rejoined it, but there has never been any change in his position on Columbus Center subsidies.

You are a lying egomaniac. One who's sole source of pleasure is denigrating others, bragging about how you meet mayoral staffers, aides of some state senators, and other low-level officials, bragging about how you get coverage in local media and occasionally on TV, and bragging about how you read the full 16,000 pages of boring public records which you haven't quoted from at all to support your positions. Your actions speak louder than words, as despite your doomsday predictions about UFPs, you have not moved away from the Mass Pike canyon, suggesting that even you don't believe in the words you spew. Besides, it's not like you can't complain about UFPs from another physical location.

 

[pelhamhall]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

I wish i was John Keith's campaign manager, I'd cut his fingers off so he would stop arguing with this dining room table!

It's just Ned! Lovable Ned! Stop taking him so seriously. I think his tin-foil hat makes him look cute. And if he wants to stay up all night barking at the moon, let him.

 

[Suffolk 83]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

Is Ned going to hijack ANOTHER thread? Srsly. Ban?

 

[Batterymarch]

Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)

does anybody know what the developer of one kenmore has previously built? anything in boston?