Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Rover said:
Brainless NIMBY's IN DA HOUSE!!!!

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...wanktuaries/xHZFEptQqaUc7YjdAHIImN/story.html

Always knew they were secretly seething at this building. :D
Click to expand...

Brainless posters on this forum. NYC has a huge problem with the uber wealthy parking their money here only to drive up housing costs for the rest of us. A tax on these empty apartments is a great idea which could be used to fund more affordable housing and schools. It probably won't be as much of an issue in Boston given the limited top 1% housing stock but if more is built then they should seriously consider a tax.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Brainless posters on this forum. NYC has a huge problem with the uber wealthy parking their money here only to drive up housing costs for the rest of us. A tax on these empty apartments is a great idea which could be used to fund more affordable housing and schools. It probably won't be as much of an issue in Boston given the limited top 1% housing stock but if more is built then they should seriously consider a tax.
Click to expand...

Thank you, van. If such foreign investment is so attractive in boston, then it means there's a chance to tax it more (e.g., a special "mansion tax"). This is exactly the sort of thing I've referred to in other posts as seeking ways for the city to best leverage this infusion of money.

The thing I take exception to in the opinion piece, however, is it again exudes the vibe of suggesting we have to choose between this money infusion in Boston...versus fixing boston's intrinsic issues. I again ask not only "why can't we have both?," but more specifically: "how can we leverage this investor interest in Boston specifically to facilitate fixing things we need to fix in Boston?" In parallel, smart taxation will throttle back the inflation of property values.

If Millennium tower was a hole in the ground for many years, and now has 100 residents living there alongside 400 absentee condo owners (I am using round numbers for the sake of discussion)....then that's 100 people living where there used to be a hole, and 500 owners' tax revenue as opposed to zero tax revenue. I have been out to eat in DTX a few times where I've encountered and chatted with MT residents - they are absolutely a part of that community, even if they have a bunch of absentee neighbors alongside them in their building.

One Dalton is an odd-shaped triangular parcel that no one was expecting to be "part of the community"...now its a giant triangular-shaped money spigot to city hall.

I am 100% for a mansion tax, and for leveraging these foreign investments to the best of our ability. But I don't buy the binary argument that we have to choose between all/nothing with these developments. Let's let them happen, but let's make smart policy in parallel that best leverages them for the betterment of boston.

Heck, use them to fund subsidies for median-income lottery housing like The Beverly.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Brainless posters on this forum. NYC has a huge problem with the uber wealthy parking their money here only to drive up housing costs for the rest of us. A tax on these empty apartments is a great idea which could be used to fund more affordable housing and schools. It probably won't be as much of an issue in Boston given the limited top 1% housing stock but if more is built then they should seriously consider a tax.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this column is indeed pretty damn brainless. A few quick points:

One Dalton is only the latest “swanktuary” constructed over the last decade. It joins Millennium Place and Millennium Tower, the two Ritz Carlton residences on Avery Street, and Twenty-Two Liberty place, together adding over 1,100 units of housing for the global 1 percent.
Click to expand...

All it takes to qualify as a member of "the global 1 percent" is an income of about $35k per year. That's less than 50% of Boston's AMI for a one-person household, and even lower for multi-person households. With the exception of some public housing, practically every single unit in Boston is "for the global 1 percent".

But now this global building boom is hitting warp speed. Skyscrapers that once took years to permit and construct are now rising at the speed of weeds.
Click to expand...

Please. The first post in this thread is from 2006. We all know this claim is complete and utter nonsense.

A high percentage of these housing units will sit empty or rarely occupied. In the Millennium Tower, for example, only 25 percent of units claim Boston’s residential property exemption, declaring the property their principal residence.
Click to expand...

"[To not] claim Boston's residential property tax exemption" != "empty or rarely occupied". These units could just be rented out as apartments; 100% of all units in apartment buildings don't get the residential exemption. Take, for example, your classic Boston triple decker where the owner lives on the first floor and rents out the two upstairs: in this arrangement only 33% of units would be owner occupied; by the author's own metric that's pretty close to MT. And if the owner of that Dorchester triple decker lives in Newton or Belmont or even Hyde Park then 0% of units would claim the residential property exemption.

[EDIT: The residential property exemption is also a trailing indicator that understates owner occupancy, especially in new buildings. See subsequent comment below.]

Projects like these don’t just drive up land and housing costs, fueling the displacement of less wealthy inhabitants.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious how anybody was displaced by the 1,100 units in "One Dalton [...] Millennium Place [...] Millennium Tower [...] the two Ritz Carlton residences on Avery Street, and Twenty-Two Liberty place".

Most of these apartments aren’t homes, but wealth storage units for what Suisse Credit describes as the “ultra-high net worth” class, those with $40 million or more.
Click to expand...

Evidence???

For them, these Boston properties are just one more option to diversify their holdings — like stocks, bonds, gold, or high-end art.
Click to expand...

Unlike other assets such as "stocks, bonds, gold, or high-end art," real estate is subject to a value tax in the United States (i.e., property tax). It is the only asset on which a value tax (or wealth tax) is imposed in this country. Going by the article's numbers, a unit "with an average cost [...] of $6 million" that doesn't "claim Boston’s residential property exemption" would owe $63,880 per year in value tax. Every other asset of similar value would owe $0.
 
Last edited:
I thought Millennium Tower was a primary residence for about ~80% the units?
 
Even if they sit empty buildings like this create good blue collar jobs and pump money into the economy. So I have no problem with the construction of buildings like this. If you do have a problem with buildings like this then I think you have jealously issues.

Skyscrapers will be expensive no matter what, unless we get slave labor like Dubai.

And I think that the whole idea that places like the Millennium Tower are just places to park money is a bunch of populist bullshit. They're apartments for the wealthy.
 
datadyne007 said:
I thought Millennium Tower was a primary residence for about ~80% the units?
Click to expand...

The residential exemption is a trailing indicator that understates owner occupancy, especially in new buildings. From the City's website:

We apply the exemption amount to your third-quarter tax bill that is issued in late December. If you didn’t get the credit on your bill and think you should have, you can apply for a residential exemption.

For Fiscal Year 2018, you have until April 2, 2018, to file an application.

HOW IT WORKS
You need to have owned and lived in your home as your primary residence on January 1 before the current fiscal year. For example, to be eligible for Fiscal Year 2018 (July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018), you need to have owned and occupied your property as your primary residence on January 1, 2017.
Click to expand...

Residents began moving into MT in July 2016, but most units weren't first occupied until months later. However, in order to be eligible for a residential exemption for a given address in a given fiscal year you had to live at that address on January 1st of the previous year.

It was thus impossible to get a residential exemption for any unit in MT for FY2016 or FY2017, as nobody lived in the building on January 1, 2016. In order to be eligible for a FY2018 exemption you must have lived in MT on January 1, 2017 (i.e., you moved in within <six months of the first unit opening). If you moved in to any unit after 1/1/17 you won't be eligible for an exemption until FY2019.

And even if you did move in before 1/1/17, residential exemptions for 2018 are still being processed (the deadline to file was just a couple weeks ago).

In short, it is entirely possible that ~80% of MT units are primary residences while only 25% have current residential exemptions.

Just another example of that column fudging the numbers for dramatic effect...
 
JumboBuc said:
The residential exemption is a trailing indicator that understates owner occupancy, especially in new buildings. From the City's website:



Residents began moving into MT in July 2016, but most units weren't first occupied until months later. However, in order to be eligible for a residential exemption for a given address in a given fiscal year you had to live at that address on January 1st of the previous year.

It was thus impossible to get a residential exemption for any unit in MT for FY2016 or FY2017, as nobody lived in the building on January 1, 2016. In order to be eligible for a FY2018 exemption you must have lived in MT on January 1, 2017 (i.e., you moved in within <six months of the first unit opening). If you moved in to any unit after 1/1/17 you won't be eligible for an exemption until FY2019.

And even if you did move in before 1/1/17, residential exemptions for 2018 are still being processed (the deadline to file was just a couple weeks ago).

In short, it is entirely possible that ~80% of MT units are primary residences while only 25% have current residential exemptions.
Click to expand...

Jumbo, you should seriously consider writing a rebuttal letter to the editor at the Globe. You are very articulate about these issues and could offer a compelling clarification and counterargument. I'm sure a ton of us would jump onto the comments section to support you.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Jumbo, you should seriously consider writing a rebuttal letter to the editor at the Globe. You are very articulate about these issues and could offer a compelling clarification and counterargument. I'm sure a ton of us would jump onto the comments section to support you.
Click to expand...

I’d just like to echo this. His points are very well laid out.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Jumbo, you should seriously consider writing a rebuttal letter to the editor at the Globe. You are very articulate about these issues and could offer a compelling clarification and counterargument. I'm sure a ton of us would jump onto the comments section to support you.
Click to expand...

+1. It happens all the time. It takes more than a couple of years after completion to see how many residential exemptions actually hit, and that is excluding secondary buyers. That along with all the other valid holes poked at the column makes it more suitable for something like The Onion.

The same will hold true for Four Seasons.


As much as the Globe readersheep would benefit from some facts and clarity, the pessimistic side of me doubts a letter to the editor would make much difference. It clearly doesn't fit their narrative and likely won't see the light of day. Maybe hit other avenues in addition to the globe. Either way, I would support it.
 
When I first started reading the Globe 50 plus years ago it was on par with the Washington Post and LA Times. It is now only a little better than the Quincy Patriot Ledger.

I wouldn't waste my time writing.
 
With deepest respect for jumbobuc's time (and fully understanding if the time isn't there),

I think that the fact that the globe has slid downhill is tangential. It is still an important platform in this city. And a substantial group has clung to this misguided (and erroneous) "foreign investment / vacant units" mantra. Regardless of the platform, regardless of the person...this myth needs to be debunked for the betterment of our city.
 
bigpicture7 said:
With deepest respect for jumbobuc's time (and fully understanding if the time isn't there),

I think that the fact that the globe has slid downhill is tangential. It is still an important platform in this city. And a substantial group has clung to this misguided (and erroneous) "foreign investment / vacant units" mantra. Regardless of the platform, regardless of the person...this myth needs to be debunked for the betterment of our city.
Click to expand...

+1

It's a lot easier to blame scary Chinese investors for our woes than to look at our extremely high cost of labor, militant NIMBYs, and excessive regulatory reviews as primary contributing factors. It's going to be an uphill battle since human nature looks to blame outsiders rather honestly looking inwards.
 
Well done people taking apart the idiocy of that article point by point. The proposals put forth by the author and emphasized by van are unworkable. How would you define an "empty apartment"? As in if an owner bought it before prices increased even more but won't relocate for awhile, do they get screwed with a tax? How about foreigners who purchase a place to visit their (wealthy) kids while at Harvard, MIT, etc. Snowbirds who do the summer here and then go back to a warmer locale in the winter (something I wouldn't mind doing).

If you start dicking people like this they just won't purchase, and the city will miss out on hundreds of millions of property taxes. That's the practical effect of brainless NIMBYism no matter how well intentioned or jealous the person is.
 
Rover said:
Well done people taking apart the idiocy of that article point by point. The proposals put forth by the author and emphasized by van are unworkable. How would you define an "empty apartment"? As in if an owner bought it before prices increased even more but won't relocate for awhile, do they get screwed with a tax? How about foreigners who purchase a place to visit their (wealthy) kids while at Harvard, MIT, etc. Snowbirds who do the summer here and then go back to a warmer locale in the winter (something I wouldn't mind doing).

If you start dicking people like this they just won't purchase, and the city will miss out on hundreds of millions of property taxes. That's the practical effect of brainless NIMBYism no matter how well intentioned or jealous the person is.
Click to expand...

Homeowner insurance has no problem defining a vacant home. I believe it is pretty typical to have to pay an increased premium if your home is unoccupied for more than 3 consecutive months. There is plenty of legal precedent for defining a vacant property.

I have no problem taxing people for voluntarily leaving a home vacant in a city with a housing crisis. Our problem is not that we can't get anyone to buy homes here. The problem is that there are 12 buyers for every home listed. We could absolutely support a tax that puts a little pressure AGAINST buyers because we have literally too many of them. If the tide ever turns and the tax is keeping homes stuck on the market, then your concerns would be valid and that would be the time to remove it.
 
fattony said:
Homeowner insurance has no problem defining a vacant home. I believe it is pretty typical to have to pay an increased premium if your home is unoccupied for more than 3 consecutive months. There is plenty of legal precedent for defining a vacant property.

I have no problem taxing people for voluntarily leaving a home vacant in a city with a housing crisis. Our problem is not that we can't get anyone to buy homes here. The problem is that there are 12 buyers for every home listed. We could absolutely support a tax that puts a little pressure AGAINST buyers because we have literally too many of them. If the tide ever turns and the tax is keeping homes stuck on the market, then your concerns would be valid and that would be the time to remove it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but while this is well intentioned it has no practical application in the real world. Homes may be vacant for a variety of reasons - a relocation for example. Do you plan on screwing those people as well. Furthermore, this proposal has the effect of having super wealthy people just not buy here, which will cost the city much, much more in lost property taxes than anything a vacancy tax brings in. I think the expression is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top