palindrome
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,273
- Reaction score
- 121
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
/facepalm
/facepalm
Fenway Center (One Kenmore) | Turnpike Parcel 7, Beacon Street | Fenway
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
"Rosenthal said Flaherty?s appeal could be in response to the fact that the activist was rejected for a position at the Newton-based development company. ?Ned sent me a letter suggesting he could help me through the permitting process and when we spoke he asked for a job,? Rosenthal recalled. ?I said no.?
While Flaherty acknowledges the exchange, the Clarendon Street resident said his comments about toxic air over the Turnpike air rights projects, including Columbus Center, have been the same for many years.
?An informed person could not conclude that my raising pollution issues about Fenway Center is because I?m angry,? he said. ?I raised it long ago.?
Do you suppose Ned would have raised the issue if he had been hired?
"Rosenthal said Flaherty?s appeal could be in response to the fact that the activist was rejected for a position at the Newton-based development company. ?Ned sent me a letter suggesting he could help me through the permitting process and when we spoke he asked for a job,? Rosenthal recalled. ?I said no.?
While Flaherty acknowledges the exchange, the Clarendon Street resident said his comments about toxic air over the Turnpike air rights projects, including Columbus Center, have been the same for many years.
?An informed person could not conclude that my raising pollution issues about Fenway Center is because I?m angry,? he said. ?I raised it long ago.?
Do you suppose Ned would have raised the issue if he had been hired?
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 2,292
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Everyone has an agenda. What a piece of shit
Everyone has an agenda. What a piece of shit
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Something is wrong when one assclown (not even an elected official with oversight on such matters) can potentially hold up a project of this magnitude.
I hope, for Ned's sake, the developers do not have Mob ties.
Just kidding . . . I wish no ill will towards Mssr. Flaherty, just that he would move to another city far far away.
Something is wrong when one assclown (not even an elected official with oversight on such matters) can potentially hold up a project of this magnitude.
I hope, for Ned's sake, the developers do not have Mob ties.
Just kidding . . . I wish no ill will towards Mssr. Flaherty, just that he would move to another city far far away.
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Id like to introduce you to San Francisco and the 3 year bike injunction they suffered because of a similar assclown.
3 years that city was banned from doing ANYTHING bike related (not a single rack) because of his lawsuit.
Last month, a judge allowed the city to install 10 bike lanes, some sharrows and unlimited bike racks, but they dont have free reign yet.
Id like to introduce you to San Francisco and the 3 year bike injunction they suffered because of a similar assclown.
3 years that city was banned from doing ANYTHING bike related (not a single rack) because of his lawsuit.
Last month, a judge allowed the city to install 10 bike lanes, some sharrows and unlimited bike racks, but they dont have free reign yet.
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Jass, that is not a very good example. About 1% of people bike and 99% of people hate them. I'm pretty sure 99% of people aren't against new development in the city...
Jass, that is not a very good example. About 1% of people bike and 99% of people hate them. I'm pretty sure 99% of people aren't against new development in the city...
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
I think Jass's illustrative point is that, from a legal/court point, one turdball can cost a lot of money and cause a lot of trouble.
And we've got ned, now tying this up in court.
Friggit all.
I think Jass's illustrative point is that, from a legal/court point, one turdball can cost a lot of money and cause a lot of trouble.
And we've got ned, now tying this up in court.
Friggit all.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
How delicious. Anyone recall Ned suggesting Jimbo favored development because it supposedly meant that there would be more product for him to sell?
And now the developer is suggesting that Ned is selling himself on the principle that it would be better to have Ned pissing out of the tent than into it.
Perhaps posting under one's own name can be less about principle and more about marketing?
Do I see a SLAPP action heading Ned's way?
P.S. Ned, I don't work for this developer, nor do I seek employment with him. I am a simple canine fortuneteller. Soon enough time will tell about the circus in the wishing well.
How delicious. Anyone recall Ned suggesting Jimbo favored development because it supposedly meant that there would be more product for him to sell?
And now the developer is suggesting that Ned is selling himself on the principle that it would be better to have Ned pissing out of the tent than into it.
Perhaps posting under one's own name can be less about principle and more about marketing?
Do I see a SLAPP action heading Ned's way?
P.S. Ned, I don't work for this developer, nor do I seek employment with him. I am a simple canine fortuneteller. Soon enough time will tell about the circus in the wishing well.
Last edited:
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,270
- Reaction score
- 5,833
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
?The proposal to build workplaces and homes at a toxic air site (over the Turnpike) threatens workers and residents with higher rates of birth defects, cancer? and earlier deaths, Flaherty said.
Following Ned Flaherty's logic then, all buildings over the Turnpike, including the Prudential Center, should be demolished. Ned, that boy, he got the powah!
?The proposal to build workplaces and homes at a toxic air site (over the Turnpike) threatens workers and residents with higher rates of birth defects, cancer? and earlier deaths, Flaherty said.
Following Ned Flaherty's logic then, all buildings over the Turnpike, including the Prudential Center, should be demolished. Ned, that boy, he got the powah!
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
If I see Ned carrying a sign on Bayswater Street protesting the UFPs ejected from the engines of a couple of hundred jets every day, I'll be sure to bring him a Thermos of coffee.
Regular or decaf, Ned?
If I see Ned carrying a sign on Bayswater Street protesting the UFPs ejected from the engines of a couple of hundred jets every day, I'll be sure to bring him a Thermos of coffee.
Regular or decaf, Ned?
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Forum members? reactions to the Boston Herald story show that they either haven?t read the proposal (a common problem), or else haven?t read recent government testimony criticizing it (even more common), or ? most likely ? haven?t read either the proposal or the testimony.
Only 15 sentences were allocated to the Herald story, which still found room to include 2 mistakes. So it?s no surprise that anyone who saw only the Herald story, and never saw the proposal or the testimony, would be ignorant of the real story, and would be overly concerned with side details which, ultimately, make no difference.
Mistake #1: Parking. Fenway Center?s latest proposal is not for ?700 parking spaces? as the Herald said. It?s for 1,290.
Mistake #2: Focus. I?m not a ?neighborhood activist? as the Herald said. I?m an urban planning activist. I cover city-wide issues such as development over the I-90 railway/roadway corridor, not neighborhood-specific issues.
The real story. The Herald missed the real story entirely, which is that EEA Secretary Bowles and the developer are relying upon state and federal air standards that ? 10 months ago ? were declared inadequate for protecting public health by a U.S. Appeals Court. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency accepted the Appeals Court ruling. Just last month, the accepted science was testified to by 6 city, state, and federal agencies:
? Massachusetts Public Health Department Environmental Health Bureau
? Metropolitan Area Planning Council
? Boston Public Health Commission Environmental Health Office
? Boston Environment Department
? US Environmental Protection Agency
? Massachusetts Environmental Protection Department
The news is not that anyone challenged the EEA Certificate. The real news is that:
? The EEA Secretary and developer relied upon a standard thrown out long ago.
? The EEA Secretary ignored November?s testimony about the thrown out standard.
Forum members are incorrect to assume that the EEA challenge opposes the project. It does not. It asks only that the proposal be made safe and healthy for its occupants, instead of being built in ways that are known to be harmful. That?s fair to ask, given the developer?s requests for public subsidies totaling about $178 million (so far). These numbers are approximate, based on information from government agencies and owners? published interviews with journalists:
$65 million state rent discount below fair market value
25 million state road and train station expansion
52 million city-sponsored tax-free bond loan
15 million state-sponsored construction loan
15 million tax increment financing city property tax break
6 million tax increment financing state income tax break
$178 million
Any privately owned project consuming that much government money needs an independent, public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies, but this developer refuses to allow such an audit.
The draft proposal (6 October 2008) was for solid, conventional, vented tunnels, but the final proposal (15 October 2009) is for perforated walls, open-air ceiling cavities, no mechanized vents, and un-filtered, concentrated exhaust that would further aggravate the public health harm proposed one year earlier.
The owners like to argue that the proposed project would not dramatically increase air pollution. While that is true, it is not the issue. The owners steer people into thinking that?s the issue in order to avoid facing the real issue. The real issue is that the existing air pollution, even with no increase, is already toxic for anyone who would work or live above it. Forum members so far have ignored this.
The owners also argue that no individual law specifically prohibits building workplaces and homes at a toxic air site that is known to harm its occupants. Again, that is true, but again, it is not the issue. The owners use it to distract attention away from the real issue. The real issue is whether new workplaces and homes at such sites are wise, especially when they consume huge public subsidies. Forum members so far have ignored this.
Forum members? reactions to the Boston Herald story show that they either haven?t read the proposal (a common problem), or else haven?t read recent government testimony criticizing it (even more common), or ? most likely ? haven?t read either the proposal or the testimony.
Only 15 sentences were allocated to the Herald story, which still found room to include 2 mistakes. So it?s no surprise that anyone who saw only the Herald story, and never saw the proposal or the testimony, would be ignorant of the real story, and would be overly concerned with side details which, ultimately, make no difference.
Mistake #1: Parking. Fenway Center?s latest proposal is not for ?700 parking spaces? as the Herald said. It?s for 1,290.
Mistake #2: Focus. I?m not a ?neighborhood activist? as the Herald said. I?m an urban planning activist. I cover city-wide issues such as development over the I-90 railway/roadway corridor, not neighborhood-specific issues.
The real story. The Herald missed the real story entirely, which is that EEA Secretary Bowles and the developer are relying upon state and federal air standards that ? 10 months ago ? were declared inadequate for protecting public health by a U.S. Appeals Court. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency accepted the Appeals Court ruling. Just last month, the accepted science was testified to by 6 city, state, and federal agencies:
? Massachusetts Public Health Department Environmental Health Bureau
? Metropolitan Area Planning Council
? Boston Public Health Commission Environmental Health Office
? Boston Environment Department
? US Environmental Protection Agency
? Massachusetts Environmental Protection Department
The news is not that anyone challenged the EEA Certificate. The real news is that:
? The EEA Secretary and developer relied upon a standard thrown out long ago.
? The EEA Secretary ignored November?s testimony about the thrown out standard.
Forum members are incorrect to assume that the EEA challenge opposes the project. It does not. It asks only that the proposal be made safe and healthy for its occupants, instead of being built in ways that are known to be harmful. That?s fair to ask, given the developer?s requests for public subsidies totaling about $178 million (so far). These numbers are approximate, based on information from government agencies and owners? published interviews with journalists:
$65 million state rent discount below fair market value
25 million state road and train station expansion
52 million city-sponsored tax-free bond loan
15 million state-sponsored construction loan
15 million tax increment financing city property tax break
6 million tax increment financing state income tax break
$178 million
Any privately owned project consuming that much government money needs an independent, public audit of costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies, but this developer refuses to allow such an audit.
The draft proposal (6 October 2008) was for solid, conventional, vented tunnels, but the final proposal (15 October 2009) is for perforated walls, open-air ceiling cavities, no mechanized vents, and un-filtered, concentrated exhaust that would further aggravate the public health harm proposed one year earlier.
The owners like to argue that the proposed project would not dramatically increase air pollution. While that is true, it is not the issue. The owners steer people into thinking that?s the issue in order to avoid facing the real issue. The real issue is that the existing air pollution, even with no increase, is already toxic for anyone who would work or live above it. Forum members so far have ignored this.
The owners also argue that no individual law specifically prohibits building workplaces and homes at a toxic air site that is known to harm its occupants. Again, that is true, but again, it is not the issue. The owners use it to distract attention away from the real issue. The real issue is whether new workplaces and homes at such sites are wise, especially when they consume huge public subsidies. Forum members so far have ignored this.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Yes, absolutely, but that?s not even the half of it.
I raised the toxic air issue before, during, and after the Fenway Center proposal. I raised it in public comments with government agencies since spring 2007. And I have been pursuing it with the Fenway Center project owners since summer 2008. My offer to them included help to resolve this issue, not help to avoid it by slipping through loopholes, as the owners are now hoping to do. So, yes, the I-90 toxic air issue was raised, and it?s a matter of public record now, and it will stay raised, until it is resolved.
Yes, absolutely, but that?s not even the half of it.
I raised the toxic air issue before, during, and after the Fenway Center proposal. I raised it in public comments with government agencies since spring 2007. And I have been pursuing it with the Fenway Center project owners since summer 2008. My offer to them included help to resolve this issue, not help to avoid it by slipping through loopholes, as the owners are now hoping to do. So, yes, the I-90 toxic air issue was raised, and it?s a matter of public record now, and it will stay raised, until it is resolved.
Ned Flaherty
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
No, that?s not a solution at all. Demolition would have no effect upon the root cause of the problem. Re-read the I-90 corridor proposals, and then re-read the published literature on toxic air. Three solutions are available for this problem: (1) build at toxic air sites in ways that are safe and healthy, (2) build elsewhere, or (3) do not build.
No, that?s not a solution at all. Demolition would have no effect upon the root cause of the problem. Re-read the I-90 corridor proposals, and then re-read the published literature on toxic air. Three solutions are available for this problem: (1) build at toxic air sites in ways that are safe and healthy, (2) build elsewhere, or (3) do not build.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Ned,
I wasn't kidding about the chance of a SLAPP suit. I assume you have consulted with counsel who advised caution in public comment? Your call, of course! (For your own sake, do not reply to this!)
Toby
Ned,
I wasn't kidding about the chance of a SLAPP suit. I assume you have consulted with counsel who advised caution in public comment? Your call, of course! (For your own sake, do not reply to this!)
Toby
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
So you admit the owners are not responsible for the issue you claim, and that there's no law requiring the owners to mitigate against the issue you claim but ... you want the owners to find a solution for the issue you claim because they're requesting public subsidy to build the project?
You've really outdone yourself this time!
So you admit the owners are not responsible for the issue you claim, and that there's no law requiring the owners to mitigate against the issue you claim but ... you want the owners to find a solution for the issue you claim because they're requesting public subsidy to build the project?
You've really outdone yourself this time!
Re: Fenway Center (One Kenmore, Mass Turnpike PARCEL 7)
Ned, a recent article came out showing that highway noise barriers are very effective at keeping pollution inside the highway and away from neighbors.
My friends live on Mountfort Street, with a window viewing the highway. Instead of trying to stop development, why not petition to install highway barriers, which will save my friends from pollution (noise and gas)?
Ive never seen you do anything related to improving the situation caused by the mass pike, just trying to stop new buildings that will imrpove the lives of people who live near the highway.
Ned, a recent article came out showing that highway noise barriers are very effective at keeping pollution inside the highway and away from neighbors.
My friends live on Mountfort Street, with a window viewing the highway. Instead of trying to stop development, why not petition to install highway barriers, which will save my friends from pollution (noise and gas)?
Ive never seen you do anything related to improving the situation caused by the mass pike, just trying to stop new buildings that will imrpove the lives of people who live near the highway.