FK4 your posts all revolve around this strange notion that the public owns every square inch of land within view of the waterfront and CLF are some brave souls guarding public access against some evil city-developer clique. Its idiotic on multiple levels. I don't give a rats ass about Hostetter except when he tries to decide on his own what can and can't be built in the city despite being totally unaccountable to the public. NIMBY's are the bane of this city's existence. A bunch of short sighted and unpopular loons who would like the city to revert back to what it looked like in 1950. If the CLF wants parkland on the waterfront, why can't they and their wealthy backers just purchase the land and make a park for themselves?
You're also missing basic economics. The city needs tax revenue. It needs fund for affordable housing because the feds aren't coughing up any. It needs revenue to maintain parks, sanitation, transportation, etc etc. If every project is caught up in frivolous lawsuits that's time and money wasted that could have been reaped to fund the priorities that we all hold near and dear. This is where self centered, short sighted NIMBY's become the problem, not the solution.
Finally, and once again, you very conveniently omit that the citizens have spoken repeatedly on this issue. Time and time again anti-development types have run for mayor. They always get slaughtered. If your position had any weight with the broader public, these people would win, no? Unlike yourself I prefer to live in a representative democracy where people vote in what they want, and aren't at the whim of shadowy figures using their personal wealth to dictate the public good on their terms as they remain unaccountable to the public at the same time. Don't like Marty Walsh? Vote him out. A much better system than letting a litigious organization with no public supervision make the rules.
Everything you have said is blunt and nothing but generalities, and you keep repeating it. In fact, absolutely nothing in the quoted post has anything to do with this project, ignores every single thing I said, and has nothing to do with the facts at hand or this particular development, and everything to do with the obvious, massive axe you have to grind and a fury at NIMBY's you insist on flinging everywhere, regardless of whether it's applicable. However, just because you don’t like NIMBYs doesn’t mean NIMBYism is the problem in every single situation where someone opposes development.
Nor do the complexities of the housing situation hinge on waterfront development - although for making that jejune statement you’ll win a few points with the idiots on here like odurandina. You've already made it abundantly clear that a nuanced discussion is not possible, but let's just remember that the biggest residential developments, including Liberty, are half empty because they're owned as investment pieces in the names of shell companies, and do nothing but drive the price up, not down, of local real estate. Even if they were 100% owner occupied, it's going to take far more than the 10 or so buildings on the waterfront to put a dent in this housing market.
But this is not the response of someone who cares about letting the facts get in the way of a good argument, or reading the details or attending meetings: this is a rant, pure and simple, by someone trying to make a broader point. Try reading the fact, and listening to actual informed people who were involved in the process at St Regis, and this development, and the corruption and shit swept under the carpet. Learn something about the issue here instead of three paragraphs of blanket statements that have nothing to do with this specific site. Speak specifically. You keep screaming “antidevelopment”; this has nothing to do with that. In fact, the CLF would be completely fine with all commercial (although the neighborhood probably wouldn’t).
FK4 your posts all revolve around this strange notion that the public owns every square inch of land within view of the waterfront and CLF are some brave souls guarding public access against some evil city-developer clique. Its idiotic on multiple levels.
Uh, YES, the public DOES have quite far reaching rights to waterfront access and use. Protected by laws, laws which Massport, the BRA and the BPDA have attempted to completely override in the dark of night. Since that's exactly what they tried to do for 150 Seaport, and they’re very likely to do that here.
Don't like Marty Walsh? Vote him out.
I will. And I live in Boston, and have a stake in this... I believe you live in New Bedford, which would be neither here nor there if not for the vehemence with you demand this development get built without any opposition, hell or high water.
PS: You might want to also go comment over on the
Regis thread too, or perhaps (tho doubtfully) actually digesting facts might temper your fanatic paranoia about NIMBYs wherever you go. Here's some actual informed comments from people who pay attention to the facts and don't blast off generalities about NIMBY/housing crisis/economy as evidence that all developments need to happen everywhere without any opposition.
As master developer for equity stakeholder MassMutual, Fallon Co acquired Fan Pier from the Pritzker family. Development rights and open space were already permitted in the form of a master plan (PDA) and a Chapter 91 license already approved in a Municipal Harbor Plan. ICA had already broken ground.
Elements of the Pritzker approvals were amended by Fallon in later years, including the shifting of the mix of uses toward office space, and the jettisoning of a fully permitted tidal park concept by renown landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh. That widely acclaimed concept by Valkenburgh was replaced by a manicured lawn along Fan Pier's north edge.
To understand how CLF pushed back on Pritzker, BRA and Menino admin during Pritzker's approval process, let's just say this. Aggregated recreational public space, (not countless hardscape plazas and hardscape corridors as we're seeing away from Chapter 91 territory), land for a future ICA and "facilities of public accommodation" such as the one soon to be occupied by Grub Street exist, as they do, in large part because of CLF's tough stand. I dare say ICA would not exist at all if not for CLF digging in.
The level of disdain for CLF then was comparable to today. They were characterized as anti-development.
I'm not going to dredge up the history of this project here. The standards for what passes muster in most of these AB posts is troubling, because it matches exactly what passes muster in my neighborhoood.
But at least let's get the facts straight. No public access existed because neither BPDA nor DEP cared about public access laws when WP and ABG were built, nor did they enforce public access provisions on remaining exterior space after the projects were built. WB and ABG were non-compliant. Secondly, 150 Seaport will occupy a significant amount of (formerly) public space, both over Harbor and public land. BPDA was prepared to sell air rights for $50,0000 until that sweet deal saw some sunlight. So it's irrelevant to state it's better than it was before. The "better than a parking lot" standard, most often cited during approvals, is a bit of parochial logic that fails to recognize potential.
From my observation having attended meetings, CLF probably would've never engaged in the process had BPDA not carried the developer's water during the *entire* Municipal Harbor Plan amendment process. Boston Harbor Now's former exec. director made a number of suggestions to improve the ground floor and Harborwalk access, and everyone (CLF likely among them) was monitoring progress. Requests were reasonable, at most BHN was suggesting a haircut on the west-facing facade would open the existing HarborWalk alignment to Pier 4. BPDA dismissed every one of BHN's comments and concerns offhand. That's a fact.
Everyone knows what went on at this site, and it had nothing to do with whether or not the project was capable of improving. 2,500+ comment letters sent to BPDA in favor of a luxury condo tells you all you need to know about how the deck was stacked. How many comment letters arrived at BPDA in support of 50 Liberty?
I do not, nor have I ever, lived in New Bedford. 
