L Street Station Redevelopment (née Old Edison Plant)| 776 Summer Street | South Boston

mass88 said:
But why? I could understand if this were at say West Broadway and D Street. But this is so close to the waterfront that it would seem that a lot people would not need to flood the nighborhood to get to/from here.
Click to expand...

A lot of NIMBYism is shakedown (not that there's anything wrong with that?)

Rationale analysis like that is sort of behind the point. What matters is that the developer has his checkbook out and there is an opportunity for neighborhood activists to get pet projects paid for.
 
And evidently they will be paying for a new bus line, too. It will be interesting to see the final implementation for that. I think it's a good spot for an express bus, which could be fed by the several local buses that use the depot.
 
Geosnarks-Globe said:
It is a ghastly rendering. It must have been generated by a summer intern at Stantec, and not a very talented one at that.
Click to expand...

the nimby peanut gallery on cue....
 
odurandina said:
The CLF has come out to stop the project.........

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...son-project/j5WQ2aVTnZ02cUl4KbKHiI/story.html



Your eyes aren't fooling you......
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps you drove with the windscreen down and your eyes are blurry.
If you fully read the article, the CLF is objecting to the residential component.

In that sense, as the article notes, CLF is aligned with the city, Massport, and Stephen Lynch who object to the amount and location of the proposed residential units.
 
stellarfun said:
Well, perhaps you drove with the windscreen down and your eyes are blurry.
If you fully read the article, the CLF is objecting to the residential component.

In that sense, as the article notes, CLF is aligned with the city, Massport, and Stephen Lynch who object to the amount and location of the proposed residential units.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I can't really understand why this is the CLF's problem. According to the article, Massport has been constructively engaging with the developer to ensure that truck access to the port is maintained. That's got nothing to do with conservation - just another example of the CLF having an inflated opinion of itself.
 
The IRS should look into their numerous conflicts of interest when they return from the furlough!
 
Equilibria said:
Yeah, but I can't really understand why this is the CLF's problem. According to the article, Massport has been constructively engaging with the developer to ensure that truck access to the port is maintained. That's got nothing to do with conservation - just another example of the CLF having an inflated opinion of itself.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of truck access. It is the apprehension that new residents at the former Boston Edison site will start objectring to the noise of the port; i.e., creating a group of new NIMBYs who will seek to move port operations away from their new residences. Like someone buying a new house in Winthrop and then objecting to aircraft noise from Logan.

CLF has apparently been long interested in preserving commercial uses of the harbor. See
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bost...osscurrents+of+change:+Boston's...-a080678689

Because of CLF's earlier role as the plaintiff in the litigation to clean up the harbor, they will have standing to sue on harbor-related matters for a long time.
 
stellarfun said:
It is not a matter of truck access. It is the apprehension that new residents at the former Boston Edison site will start objectring to the noise of the port; i.e., creating a group of new NIMBYs who will seek to move port operations away from their new residences. Like someone buying a new house in Winthrop and then objecting to aircraft noise from Logan.

CLF has apparently been long interested in preserving commercial uses of the harbor. See
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bost...osscurrents+of+change:+Boston's...-a080678689

Because of CLF's earlier role as the plaintiff in the litigation to clean up the harbor, they will have standing to sue on harbor-related matters for a long time.
Click to expand...

Brainless NIMBY bullshit from the Continuous Lawsuits Frivolous people. I seriously doubt their interest is protecting commercial port operations. Its shaking down developers, and after they got laughed out of the Whiskey Priest site with a 250K a year "here, now get lost" payment from the developer they're looking for another mark. They have zero interest in this otherwise especially after there's already an agreement to not locate the residences near the Massport site.

This is an extortion attempt. Plain and simple.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Stat, 100% with you on the criticality of environmental protection.....

But, again, environmental protection is vital. It is inconvenient that we don't have a simple narrative to identify the good guys and bad guys. The world is much messier than that.
Click to expand...

In Boston it's considered an extremist idea to build an urban street wall.

stellarfun said:
Well, perhaps you drove with the windscreen down and your eyes are blurry....
Click to expand...

Prescient! Malibu in the pouring rain! Yes i'm totally with you guys about creating a future nimby outcry, and
the vital priority to prevent that. But the CLF needs to be here like a dental care center needs a jackhammer.





 
stellarfun said:
It is not a matter of truck access. It is the apprehension that new residents at the former Boston Edison site will start objectring to the noise of the port; i.e., creating a group of new NIMBYs who will seek to move port operations away from their new residences. Like someone buying a new house in Winthrop and then objecting to aircraft noise from Logan.
Click to expand...

The waterfront/bridge haul road was built to avoid the South Boston NIMBYs in the first place... so this is a very valid concern which threatens to disrupt our port facilities and the millions of dollars that taxpayers have invested here just so someone can have a view of the harbor from their new condo.


First thing I thought of when they started talking about residences here was didn't they build a completely new road along the waterfront to avoid residential areas??? Industrial/Port activities aren't compatible with residential there so there needs to be some buffer. Residential should be kept away from the haul road and the shipping facilities. Maybe along Summer St or at the corner.

City needs to stop creating problems through bad planning assuming that Federal money will just be available to fix it later on.
 
From the Globe article,

Massport secured a [deed] restriction on the Edison property with its previous owner, back in 2014, aimed at preventing residential units from being built there. The goal: to protect Conley and its truck traffic for the long haul.
.........
Redgate principal Ralph Cox [co-developer] says he remains confident that the potential conflicts with Massport can be overcome, in part by locating residential buildings away from the freight corridor and by properly alerting people moving in about the haul road.
Click to expand...

IMO, the developers seek to sell the residences as quickly as they can, and walk away with their gains. Left behind will be 2500+ new residents (and voters) who are now unhappy they are living in a maritime industrial zone. They'll be clamoring for restrictions on the hours of the day ships can be loaded / unloaded, and no work on weekends, etc etc. This will be the HT residents on steroids.
 
stellarfun said:
From the Globe article,

IMO, the developers seek to sell the residences as quickly as they can, and walk away with their gains. Left behind will be 2500+ new residents (and voters) who are now unhappy they are living in a maritime industrial zone. They'll be clamoring for restrictions on the hours of the day ships can be loaded / unloaded, and no work on weekends, etc etc. This will be the HT residents on steroids.
Click to expand...

'by properly alerting people moving in about the haul road'....

"Oh subparagraph 4 of your lease/condo agreement said not to worry about the 24 hour truck traffic 50 feet from your window... pretty please don't complain about it or demand we shutdown the port of Boston so you can get some sleep."
 
Rover said:
Brainless NIMBY bullshit from the Continuous Lawsuits Frivolous people. I seriously doubt their interest is protecting commercial port operations. Its shaking down developers, and after they got laughed out of the Whiskey Priest site with a 250K a year "here, now get lost" payment from the developer they're looking for another mark. They have zero interest in this otherwise especially after there's already an agreement to not locate the residences near the Massport site.

This is an extortion attempt. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

This sounds a tad paranoid, dont you think? Did you actually read the post that you quoted by stellarfun? The CLF has done an immense amount of good for Boston, and apparently are interested in preserving the waterfront for genuine waterfront purposes: that is, not just letting the state and city give away the entire coast to rich people condo developments and yachting berths. Read the Fish Pier article referenced in stellar's post. I think it's interesting to consider the preservation of the waterfront for a variety of uses, just like it's worth preserving variety of uses & incomes in any redevelopment area. This state and city aren't exactly responsible actors when it comes to not just giving land away willy nilly (present example: thank god for Michelle Wu contesting Marty's attempt to just sell of the "Midtown" property without any public debate on this). So, I'll take the CLF.

But, whether the CLF is good or bad or whether you agree with them or not, they're a nonprofit and stand to gain nothing from either outcome of this, so "extortion" does not apply. How exactly do you think they are going to profit? The "payment" you describe is for public benefits (which are substantial; they certainly weren't "laughed out"), as dictated by the terms of the settlement.
 
Last edited:
FK4 said:
This sounds a tad paranoid, dont you think? Did you actually read the post that you quoted by stellarfun? The CLF has done an immense amount of good for Boston, and apparently are interested in preserving the waterfront for genuine waterfront purposes: that is, not just letting the state and city give away the entire coast to rich people condo developments and yachting berths. Read the Fish Pier article referenced in stellar's post. I think it's interesting to consider the preservation of the waterfront for a variety of uses, just like it's worth preserving variety of uses & incomes in any redevelopment area. This state and city aren't exactly responsible actors when it comes to not just giving land away willy nilly (present example: thank god for Michelle Wu contesting Marty's attempt to just sell of the "Midtown" property without any public debate on this). So, I'll take the CLF.

But, whether the CLF is good or bad or whether you agree with them or not, they're a nonprofit and stand to gain nothing from either outcome of this, so "extortion" does not apply. How exactly do you think they are going to profit? The "payment" you describe is for public benefits (which are substantial; they certainly weren't "laughed out"), as dictated by the terms of the settlement.
Click to expand...

Not at all. CLF has become a tool for a billionaire to try to play king in terms of development near the waterfront. If Amos wants that much power, might I suggest a self funded run for mayor or governor instead of trying to bury people with frivolous lawsuits?

But to the subject at hand. Massport holds the cards in order to protect the road to Massport's property by way of a restriction on what can be built on the power plant site. Given those facts, which are not in dispute, what exactly is the CLF's game here? Do they know more about port operations than Massport? Somewhat doubtful. Do they have a greater stake in what goes on at the shipping port than Massport? Again, no. Is waterfront access being blocked by this project? No, its a remodeling of an existing structure. Massport and developer have already worked out a deal to not locate residences on the side of the access road, so again what's their angle here?

Maybe it goes to your 2nd paragraph. CLF's harbor and transit advocacy from 35 years ago is now irrelevant. At some point, probably when Hostetter became their paymaster, they are being used as a front for a billionaire's vanity project. You're either being naïve or disingenuous, but the benefits of blocking development projects for the CLF are pretty straight forward. If they become the de facto power broker on the waterfront, as in nothing gets done without their say so, pretty soon you're going to see donations and favors flowing into their coffers because you'll have to pay to play. This is sort of how the Mafia used to operate back when they were in their heyday. Get all your permits, but if you actually want to build something we need to be "taken care of". At that point they get to shape the waterfront according to one unelected aging NIMBY billionaire's vision even though nobody elected the dude to stand in judgment on any of this.

In conclusion, CLF has now become a shit organization. Trying to talk up their defeat at 150 Seaport Ave is hilarious. They wanted the project stopped or wanted a massive payoff to go away. They got 11M over 35 freakin years! That's a "here, now get lost assholes" face saving payment by the developer that the CLF should have been too ashamed to take.

If the citizens of Boston wanted to embrace anti-development loons who will put citizens groups in charge of planning, they've had multiple chances to do so. Instead they keep electing pro-development people by a 2-1 margin. The 70's are over FK, and NIMBYism is no longer lionized, even in the Glob anymore.
 
Rover said:
Not at all. CLF has become a tool for a billionaire to try to play king in terms of development near the waterfront. If Amos wants that much power, might I suggest a self funded run for mayor or governor instead of trying to bury people with frivolous lawsuits?

But to the subject at hand. Massport holds the cards in order to protect the road to Massport's property by way of a restriction on what can be built on the power plant site. Given those facts, which are not in dispute, what exactly is the CLF's game here? Do they know more about port operations than Massport? Somewhat doubtful. Do they have a greater stake in what goes on at the shipping port than Massport? Again, no. Is waterfront access being blocked by this project? No, its a remodeling of an existing structure. Massport and developer have already worked out a deal to not locate residences on the side of the access road, so again what's their angle here?

Maybe it goes to your 2nd paragraph. CLF's harbor and transit advocacy from 35 years ago is now irrelevant. At some point, probably when Hostetter became their paymaster, they are being used as a front for a billionaire's vanity project. You're either being naïve or disingenuous, but the benefits of blocking development projects for the CLF are pretty straight forward. If they become the de facto power broker on the waterfront, as in nothing gets done without their say so, pretty soon you're going to see donations and favors flowing into their coffers because you'll have to pay to play. This is sort of how the Mafia used to operate back when they were in their heyday. Get all your permits, but if you actually want to build something we need to be "taken care of". At that point they get to shape the waterfront according to one unelected aging NIMBY billionaire's vision even though nobody elected the dude to stand in judgment on any of this.

In conclusion, CLF has now become a shit organization. Trying to talk up their defeat at 150 Seaport Ave is hilarious. They wanted the project stopped or wanted a massive payoff to go away. They got 11M over 35 freakin years! That's a "here, now get lost assholes" face saving payment by the developer that the CLF should have been too ashamed to take.

If the citizens of Boston wanted to embrace anti-development loons who will put citizens groups in charge of planning, they've had multiple chances to do so. Instead they keep electing pro-development people by a 2-1 margin. The 70's are over FK, and NIMBYism is no longer lionized, even in the Glob anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but at the core of this, this all sounds like rage, at what, it's not clear but everything is drenched in personal hatred. Since you say "billionaire" twice, "Amos" and "Hostetter" is would seem you have a vendetta against Amos Hostetter, who is a philanthropist who late in the game has tried to stymie the state's giving away of the last peri-downtown waterfront land that's left. That's also been a prime goal of the CLF. I don't how or why anyone would be bitter over an attempt to actually leave the public realm with something everyone could enjoy, rather than just letting the entire coast, as I already said, get lined with towers for millionaires and some measly Harborwalk amenities. Vanity project? Like, seriously? A huge park at the Seaport would be fantastic. You honestly would rather more banal plastic cubes for corporations and rich people? You actually think that's more democratic? Wow. The only reason for any of this, given the degree of hatred in the tone of your response, would be, I might guess, some anti-elitist belief that rich people should never contribute anything so a public park financed by a billionaire will always be worse than housing for rich people but that was built according to a usual public process. Perhaps you should read Koestler's Darkness at Noon, if that's the case.

A few other points...
The 150 Seaport settlement (lawsuit for 40M) was for 13M, not 11M, and that's a LOT of money.

It's also puzzling why you appear to hold up Massport - the hotbed of some of the deepest corruption and scandals in our state, past and present - as some example of a reliable public entity. There are real concerns outlined in the Globe article, which perhaps you might read and metabolize:

Massport secured a restriction on the Edison property with its previous owner, back in 2014, aimed at preventing residential units from being built there. The goal: to protect Conley and its truck traffic for the long haul.

But Campbell worries Massport might be about to ease that restriction to make way for the 1.9 million-square-foot campus that Boston’s Redgate and Illinois-based Hilco Redevelopment Partners envision for the Edison site. He says he finds it inexplicable that planning has proceeded with the implicit assumption that Massport will lift the housing restriction. In his letter, he calls on Massport to explain its apparent shifting rationale, and to provide a public process for the decision. And he points to a boast on Redgate’s website, describing the firm as a port authority consultant, as evidence of a potential conflict.
Click to expand...

NIMBYism isnt a term you just get to fling at every opposing viewpoint you dont like. There are real issues here for the public that are important and need to be addressed, and rage-laden conspiracy theories don't make that go away.

Edit - just because this is so worth calling out specifically:
Rover said:
If the citizens of Boston wanted to embrace anti-development loons who will put citizens groups in charge of planning, they've had multiple chances to do so. Instead they keep electing pro-development people by a 2-1 margin. The 70's are over FK, and NIMBYism is no longer lionized, even in the Glob anymore.
Click to expand...

Yes, the 70s, and the 60s, moreover, are indeed over. The era when citizens actually cared about the public realm, protecting the environment, and not letting the government steamroll minorities is indeed on the rocks as we speak. I'm just surprised to hear such a clarion call for reactionary-conservative values on a site I consider a liberal one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top