Re: Filene's
. . . Are there enough . . . Boston residents . . . [who] care enough about the anathema of the Filene's boondoggle to drag it into the spotlight of the mayoral election?
It was already dragged into the spotlight in ?Rushing to a standstill; City allowed developers to skirt requirements in stalled $700m Downtown Crossing project? (
Boston Globe, 26 March 2009).
_ The question is whether voters care enough.
. . . Ned . . . if you put a fraction of the energy you've put into obstructing the development of Columbus Center into spotlighting the epic failure on the corner of Washington and Franklin, you'd be doing a real service to the entire city.
Filene?s is an epic failure (but only for the time being), whereas Columbus is an astronomical one:
_ the Columbus square footage is larger, the cost is higher, and even after 14 years it has failed to obtain funding from banks, government, and even its owners.
_ Columbus is Boston?s longest running urban planning failure, for all the reasons that Filene?s failed, plus dozens more.
I never obstructed air rights development, or parcels 16-17-18-19 development, or even Columbus Center; instead, I have worked hard to get development done there on the principles which taxpayers and toll-payers were promised, and which they have every right to expect:
? using competitive bids;
? at fair market value;
? with full financial disclosure;
? and Turnpike Master Plan compliance;
? at minimum environmental harm.
The Columbus owners continue refusing all 5 of these principles.
_ They painted themselves into a corner of their very own design, whereas Filene?s fell when the economy fell, and thus will rise again.
_ Columbus has no such prospects, because of the complex financial chicanery by which all 9 of the profiteers hoodwinked themselves and each other into a deal that can never succeed.
_ Here?s a short summary for all those who don?t want to read the 4-year Columbus Center thread:
? Project was proposed and approved as subsidy-free.
? But 19 public subsidies costing taxpayers $605 million were quietly sought.
? Then taxpayers and toll-payers got the subsidies rescinded.
? Even so, the owners spent $110 million assuming subsidies would repay them.
? The project never met commercial lending criteria (minimum 40% down, maximum 60% loan).
? No bank loan was ever issued, approved, or even applied for.
? No owner will eat any other owner?s losses, so all 9 partners are stuck.
? Two lawsuits have been threatened publicly (and probably a few more privately).
After missing every major deadline they ever set for themselves, the owners are continuing to quietly seek huge taxpayer-funded bail-outs.
The Filene?s mess is more apparent because there?s visual evidence of the damage.
_ There was never anything at the Columbus site, and there?s nothing there today, so most voters don?t see much harm.
_ The real damage is hidden in rarely seen records inside the government agencies that are still trying to pay for Columbus with taxpayer dollars.
In light of all the above, continuing to expose Columbus Center?s scam of taxpayers is a greater public service than criticizing Filene?s streamlined approvals, which the
Globe already did nicely.
_ The Filene?s problem is just unfairly rushed approvals that led to a multi-year delay from which the developers will recover when the economy recovers, whereas the Columbus problem is a costly systemic government failure poised to repeat itself in 5 other air rights proposals now pending.
I am vastly more knowledgeable about Columbus than Filene?s, so kindly let me know if any of this comparison is flawed.
