News ONLY Columbus Center Thread

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers
by John Keith, South End News Contributor

An opportunity to stitch back together a deep tear in the urban fabric was lost with the failed Columbus Center project, the proposed $800 million, mixed-use complex to be built on decks constructed over the Massachusetts Turnpike. After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else. It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.

How could this possibly happen? How could a project that was so far along in the process unravel at the last minute, after construction had already started?

There is plenty of blame to spread around, beginning with the company that first proposed the development.

It looks as though Arthur Winn and his WinnDevelopment never secured the money needed to complete the project. According to published reports, the developer missed two deadlines earlier this year by which it was supposed to have proved to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority that it had raised $500 million (it did prove it had at least half that). But, trouble was brewing long before then.

Back in 1996, the developer proposed a subsidy-free project, but soon after it received its first approvals, it began reaching out for taxpayer money. Meanwhile, its financing began to fall apart. Major investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew more than $500 million in commitments as early as 2006. The next year, the real estate subsidiary run by investment partner CalPERS (now "owner of record" on the project and "leasee" of the Turnpike air rights lease) threatened to pull out unless the state guaranteed public assistance. In early 2007, the developers came to the state asking for help; but by April 2008, they hit a brick wall, failing to make it to round two in their quest for a $10 million MORE (Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion) grant. Not long after, MassHousing, the state?s affordable housing agency, withdrew its promise of another $20 million. When asked, the city of Boston, which had already committed $14 million in incentives and tax credits, said, "No more."

Meanwhile, at the same time it was knocking on doors in search of funds, the developer faced a rapidly increasing budget, due to rising labor and material costs. The project had an estimated cost of $300 million when it was proposed in 1996, but that has ballooned to the now estimated $800 million. It sure didn?t help things when the credit crisis hit the commercial markets and residential real estate sales imploded.

If Mr. Winn had been able to pull things together, it would have been possible to ignore the constant drone of complaints from a small but vocal group of residents, neighbors and politicians, and we wouldn?t be having this conversation. But, he didn?t, it wasn?t, and we are.

The Columbus Center was more than just "luxury condos." It would have included a grocery store, daycare center, parking, and new parks - the result of promises extorted from the developer during the more than 130 public meetings held throughout the neighborhood over the past 10 years. In the final analysis, our friends and neighbors asked for too much - their constant meddling unnecessarily prolonged the approval process to the point it became economically unfeasible to build.

Blame also lies at the feet of our local elected officials. House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, South End State Representative Byron Rushing and Back Bay State Representative Marty Walz each spoke out against public financing for Columbus Center, in effect dooming its chances to move forward. Ironically, at the same time they were expressing astonishment at the very idea of public funds going to a private company, they were supporting legislation that handed out millions (actually, billions) of dollars in subsidies to other projects across the Commonwealth.

For example, Reps. DiMasi and Walz approved $60 million in state spending and incentives to help "persuade" drug company Bristol-Myers Squibb to move to Massachusetts. They?ve both heaped praise on the Massachusetts film-credit incentive program, which the Department of Revenue estimates has cost the state $120 million over the past three years. And just this spring, all three voted in favor of the $1 billion life sciences bill, which authorizes $500 million in borrowed capital spending, an additional $250 million in grants, and another $250 million in tax incentives.

Yet, when it came to helping out someone in their own backyard, our representatives defied logic and suddenly clammed up and clamped down. It?s all well and good to argue against public subsidies on principle, but don?t pull it out as an excuse only when it?s politically expedient or personally beneficial.

What have residents lost, as a result of the project?s failure? Property tax revenues (eventually; the city had promised forgiveness of much of it during the first years), jobs, homes, parks, parking spaces and the conveniences of local shops, for starters. In addition, WinnDevelopment would have been required to include affordable-housing units as part of any new construction or make a significant financial payment into the city?s low-cost housing fund. These community benefits are all gone.

But, this is all water under the bridge, or decks, as it were. I, for one, have given up on the project. One small request, though. Mr. Winn, don?t feel any rush to clean up your construction site; please leave it as is - an enduring testament to the lost chances and broken dreams that define the development process in Boston in the 21st century.

John Keith is a resident of the South End and a real estate broker. Read his blog at bostonREB.com. Matt Byrne contributed to this column.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[Size=+2]Big Dig oversight law could turn blind eye[/size]
By Hillary Chabot ? Tuesday, August 19, 2008

A new law aimed at preventing another Big Dig tunnel tragedy may not apply to privately developed projects yet to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike, a prospect that has those behind the legislation scrambling.

?For the highest-risk projects, this new bill would provide no oversight at all,? said Ned Flaherty, a neighborhood activist in the South End.

The new law, signed by Gov. Deval Patrick two weeks ago, compels state agencies to hire an independent engineer to oversee public construction projects in an effort to prevent another tragic tunnel collapse like the 2006 disaster that killed Milena Del Valle.

However, several private companies that lease air rights to develop over the Pike may not have to follow the new law, meaning several high-risk projects slated for Boston wouldn?t trigger the oversight.

?If that arises as an issue, we will put in corrective language,? said Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), one of the lead sponsors of the legislation. ?We won?t allow this law to be circumvented.?

Pike officials are currently reviewing the new law to see if it applies to private construction over the tollway. A representative of Inspector General Gregory Sullivan?s office, who worked with lawmakers to create the bill, said current oversight conducted by Pike officials would suffice.

But Flaherty argued state officials also oversaw Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff?s work on the Dig.

?The reason for having an owner?s representative is to make sure someone absolutely independent is checking the work on these projects,? Flaherty said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view.bg?articleid=1113696

 

[Wocket]

Re: Columbus Center

I am shocked Ned didn't already post his latest contribution to the South End News, so here goes. I wonder if i am the only person who has tired of reading him as a source on this story.

The truth is in the public records
by Ned Flaherty
MySouthEnd.com Contributor
Thursday Aug 21, 2008

Boston?s biggest urban planning failure, the Columbus Center, is a complex pile of pretty watercolors, arcane legal maneuvers, clerical errors, and public relations ploys. Now in its 13th year of being re-proposed, many of the myths have been uncovered, while others still haven?t come to light.

Among the most misled are people on the real estate industry gravy train, where every proposal is another profit opportunity. The brokers, bankers, attorneys, architects, builders, media spinners, lobbyists, and hobbyists should check the public records before making assumptions about a story that began before many of them were even working here.

Nine of the most popular myths were repeated in John Keith?s column, "Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers" (August 14).

So here - straight from the public records - are the facts.

1. No one should assume that the proposal failed because three state representatives opposed subsidizing it. Most of our 200 state legislators and most of their constituents have long opposed wasting public dollars on a proposal that got approved by dishonestly posing as subsidy-free. But the proposal wasn?t killed by legislators or constituents. The developers killed it, by promising Massachusetts taxpayers that there would be no subsidies, then promising California investors that Massachusetts would subsidize both costs and profits, and then getting caught.

2. No one should believe that neighbors somehow made the buildings "economically unfeasible." The developers? own construction cost analyses and real estate sale prices show that the tunnels and buildings themselves have always been economically feasible, because construction costs and sale prices rise and fall together, as the developers explained on September 10, 2004 in the Boston Herald. But while the buildings themselves remained feasible, the overall project became increasingly unfeasible as the developers deceived investors and told them that:

? taxpayers would subsidize both costs and profits;
? condominium owners would repay the 50-year state construction loans;
? condominium owners would pay the Turnpike 99 years of rent for air space; and
? condominium owners would inspect, maintain, repair, upgrade, replace, and insure the publicly used tunnels over seven acres of the 14-lane interstate transportation corridor forever.

3. No one should fall for the fable that investor Anglo-Irish Bank withdrew funding for the project - they never promised any in the first place. On May 10, 2006, the bank offered to consider an application for up to $437,600,000, but only if the developers met all commercial lending criteria by September 8, 2006. The developers didn?t qualify, the loan wasn?t applied for, and the bank?s offer expired. It was never renewed, revised, or replaced. But the bank didn?t back out of the loan; instead, the developers never qualified enough to even apply for it.

Even though no loans were ever issued, for years the developers wrote subsidy applications - under penalties and pains of perjury - claiming that they already had 100 percent of the financing.

4. No neighbors ever "extorted" public parks from the developer. The Turnpike Master Plan was enacted long before the public process started, and requires two acres of contiguous public parkland. The promises to build public parks were just the developers? weak efforts to partly comply with that plan.

Moreover, the public didn?t extort parks from the developer, but the developer did steal parks from the public. On December 14, 2006, the developers quietly converted the promised public parks into privately owned gardens over which the public has no control and no recourse.

5. CalPERS?s threatened pull-out didn?t occur in 2007. That threat came in one year earlier. It was shortly after signing the Turnpike?s lease in May 2006 that California - meaning California Public Employees Retirement System, now the principal in the project - threatened to cancel if Massachusetts didn?t arrange a looser lease, lower rent, and larger subsidies.

6. The developers never raised "at least $250 million." No subsidy agency ever disbursed any funds. No bank ever issued any construction loans. By early 2008, California?s lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority had been in default for nearly two years, so exasperated Turnpike officials insisted on $294,461,484 in completion guarantees. But California declined.

In early April, California?s Boston-based managers flew to the west coast and begged, but came back empty-handed. In early July, the project?s owners at CalPERS-CUIP-MURC-CWCC imposed a news blackout on all journalists. Any venture that had actually raised $250 million wouldn?t behave this way.

7. Brokers eager to sell more luxury condominiums blame the proposal?s failure on "approval delays." That?s also untrue. The review process took only three years (from 2001 to 2003), but the developers wasted 10 years (1996 to 2000 and 2004 to 2008) planning to beg agencies for tax dollars. The Turnpike?s latest draft of the lease allows construction to start in 2010, but not finish until 2025.

8. Real estate people call community participation "constant meddling" because the profiteers see communities as trampling on their private revenue. But concerned citizens have the right to question any proposal, especially one from developers who paid a governor $10,000 to prohibit competitors, who refused public audits, and who violated the Turnpike Master Plan.

9. No one should bemoan the community benefits as "lost." No existing benefits have been lost, and potential future benefits have only been postponed. Qualified developers will eventually write competitive proposals that offer jobs, homes, parks, stores, affordability, and tax revenue. What has been lost is 13 years of time wasted listening to the drumbeat of re-proposals from California?s Columbus Center.


Whenever a project is proposed, real estate people threaten the public with "losing benefits" if approval isn?t rapid. But truly good proposals can succeed no matter when they?re approved, and proposals that only work in frothy economies are fundamentally unfeasible, and should be disapproved. Rushing a review is never necessary, and only invites a bad ending.

And whenever a project fails, the real estate industry finds apologists to blame everyone else: the taxpayers who wouldn?t pay for it, the bankers who wouldn?t finance it, and - most often - the review process that killed the precious golden goose. But public reviews are not mere formalities to be endured; they are a series of tests put in place not just to approve worthy proposals, but also to halt unworthy ones. Honest, feasible proposals survive that process.

Massachusetts taxpayers care how their money gets spent and they decided not to fund California?s costs and profits. Bankers shun losses, and none have risked any money on this proposal. Even the owners themselves stopped funding it.

The fact that community scrutiny of public records helped expose Columbus Center?s flaws proves that our public processes are - thankfully - working as designed.

Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods co-founder and former Ellis South End Neighborhood Association vice president Ned Flaherty supports air rights development citywide, and opposes Master Plan violations such as those that led to the failure of California?s Columbus Center.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Columbus Center

Here is a bit more from the South End News:

MySouthEnd.com

Keith gets it wrong on Columbus Center
To the editor:

I strongly disagree with many of the statements made by John Keith in his editorial. The project known as Columbus Center went sour from its very inception. Rather than go out to bid, Winn/Cassin was granted the sole right to build on these parcels without any other input from other possible developers.

During the many CAC meetings, the neighborhood(s) you recently accused of killing this project requested financial information. It was never revealed to the public. Perhaps had this information been made available, much of the mess that the project is in could have been avoided.

You seem to point fingers at seemingly greedy neighbors but I have no doubt that it is the developers who are greedy.

I don?t know where you reside, but if you were an abutter to this proposed monstrosity you would be singing a different tune.

J. Komarow


CORRECTION
In John Keith?s opinion piece last week, "Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand father," he indicated that MassHousing withdrew a $20 million loan from the Columbus Center project. According to MassHousing, the agency did not withdraw the loan, but rather did not choose to close on it. We regret the mischaracterization.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Menino wants assurances from developers[/size]

[size=+1]Mayor seeks new rule after financial tie-ups[/size]

By Casey Ross ? Globe Staff ? August 21, 2008

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino wants to require developers of large projects to obtain financing before they win permission to dig up the city.

His call follows financial problems for two high-profile developments that have already begun construction in Boston: the $650 million redevelopment of the Filene's building in Downtown Crossing and the $800 million Columbus Center complex over the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Menino is having city planners devise a regulation that would delay approvals for developers who cannot show adequate financial backing to proceed with construction. The regulation is an attempt to prevent city streets from being at the mercy of credit markets that can suddenly stall or upend projects.

"We already have two or three holes in our landscape; we don't want any more," said Menino. "We don't want to stifle development, but we don't want developers to take advantage of the city."

The mayor spoke yesterday after the Globe reported that the developers of the 38-story commercial and residential tower on the former Filene's property have been unable to raise financing because credit markets have severely tightened in the wake of the subprime mortgage debacle.

The project is the cornerstone of Menino's effort to remake Downtown Crossing into a destination shopping district in the heart of the city. Almost a year after receiving city permits, the developers have only begun to excavate a portion of the site for its new foundation.

Menino and officials at the Boston Redevelopment Authority said they have been working on the policy for several days and that they were not spurred to action solely by Filene's or any other development. A draft of the regulation indicates that $12 billion in projects are currently under development in the city, and points out that many neighborhoods might have to put up with abandoned or vacant construction sites if tight credit markets continue to delay construction.

An executive with a leading development group said the mayor's regulation is unworkable and would have a chilling effect on future projects.

"It will become a barrier to development. The market just doesn't work that way," said David Begelfer, Massachusetts director of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. "To react this way because of the current abnormality in the credit market, I don't think is very prudent."

Other individual developers, including those for the Filene's and Columbus Center projects, declined to comment.

Lenders have been wary of making commercial real estate loans since the subprime mortgage crisis erupted last summer and caused heavy losses at investment banks and other financing firms.

The team trying to build the Columbus Center halted construction on the giant mixed-used complex this year after developers lost some of their private financing as well as some state subsidies.

The draft of Menino's regulation indicates that developers would have to show proof of financing within 18 months of city approval in order to move forward with construction. If they fail to do so, they would have to ask the city for an extension of their permits.

The Filene's project received its city approval in August 2007, while the Columbus Center project was approved in July 2003.

To take effect, the regulation needs the BRA board's approval.

The mayor said the policy would also help the city control the practice of "flipping," in which developers get approval for a project, carry out demolition and other site work, and then sell it for a profit.

"Too many times developers come in, get approvals, sit on it and make all the money off the city," Menino said. "It's an issue we have to get a hold of."

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Zombie horses ride again?

Boston Globe - Sept 4, 2008

Columbus Center may get a lifeline
2 developers to scour project's finances

By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | September 4, 2008

Two prominent developers have been hired to rescue the foundering Columbus Center project in Boston, an $800 million complex over the Massachusetts Turnpike that would reunite the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods.

Related Properties of New York and the Beal Cos. of Boston, which are building the luxury Clarendon condominiums nearby, said they will conduct a six-week, top-to-bottom review of the Columbus Center's finances to determine whether the long-troubled project remains viable.

"We're attempting to come up with a solution which may save the project and substantially reduce the cost," said Bruce A. Beal, chairman of the Beal Cos. "We believe we're headed in the right direction and may be able to do that."

Columbus Center is one of the most ambitious developments in Boston - a massive hotel, residential, and retail complex that would be built on a deck that will straddle the turnpike and link two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South End borders Back Bay.

Both Beal and Related are major developers with considerable resources. But it remains unclear if the pair would invest in Columbus Center should they be able to find a way to move the construction forward. Columbus Center's owners, MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. and WinnCompanies, confirmed that they have hired Beal and Related as paid consultants to scour the project's finances.

In the 11 years since Winn first started planning the construction, Columbus's costs have soared to more than double its initial projected costs, from around $300 million to its most recent estimate of $800 million. Moreover, Winn and MacFarlane failed to obtain a package of $35 million in previously promised state subsidies after the Patrick administration lost confidence in the developers' ability to proceed. The project also encountered significant opposition from residents in the South End and the Back Bay over the size of the project and the use of public funds for what is mostly a luxury development.

Construction on the complex's foundation began earlier this year, but then stopped in March with the developers' latest financial troubles. Previously, Columbus Center was scheduled to be completed by 2011.

Columbus Center suffered a series of setbacks over the last year or so. Costs for construction materials, such as steel and copper, had soared on global demand. Meanwhile, a downturn in the US residential real estate market, especially for condominiums, coupled with turmoil in the nation's credit market, made it hard to borrow money for an ever-more expensive project. Late last year, one lender, Anglo Irish Bank, withdrew more than $500 million in promised funds. That left the developers scrambling to keep the project alive as neighborhood opponents declared it all but dead.

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said last night that the involvement of the new consultants is a positive sign. "To have Winn and Beal come together at this stage is very important," Menino said. "This project needs a new infusion of equity."

Menino also said it would be better to build the project in phases, so the developers would not have to obtain the entire amount of funds to do all the work at once.

"The decking over the turnpike really drives the cost, so it has to be phased in," he said. "I would like to see this project saved. It fills a hole in the city of Boston and brings those two neighborhoods together."

Beal declined to detail his strategy for reviving the project, but he emphasized that he will not change any of its elements and will seek to build it under existing permits. He said the review will include an "A to Z" examination of all the project's costs and possible ways to save money.

"We're excited and encouraged by what we've seen so far," he said, declining to be more specific.

When Beal conceived of the Clarendon, a 33-story residential building now under construction, Columbus Center was expected to be a prominent neighbor that would enhance the value of his project and create a bridge over industrial property.

Instead, Beal's project is proceeding alone, while the Columbus Center site looks abandoned.

Beal's company has extensive experience with development across the region. The firm owns One Kendall Square, a 10-acre mixed-use development in Cambridge, and manages an extensive list of prominent buildings in and around Boston.

Related Properties is a national developer known for its success on dense urban projects similar to Columbus Center. It developed Time Warner Center in New York and projects in California, Colorado, Florida, and elsewhere.

"Related has a very strong financial reputation and has done a lot of very large projects," said George J. Fantini Jr., chairman of the mortgage banking firm Fantini & Gorga. "Along with Beal, their involvement adds some real value."

Columbus Center's developers, along with Beal and Related, are scheduled to meet with the city and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Sept. 15 to try to revive stalled talks over extending the lease for the Columbus Center property. The turnpike has leased the rights to build over the highway to Winn, so the authority must be consulted on any major changes to the project.

The developers have been seeking an 18-month extension to reconfigure their finances, but a deadline to reach an agreement passed last week. A spokesman for the Turnpike Authority said the authority is still committed to working with the developers.

"We hope to reach a consensus not only on the requested 18-month extension for the project, but more importantly on maintaining the [construction] site during that time period," spokesman Mac Daniel said.

Beal pledged to clean up the site and to remove fencing that has encroached on surrounding neighborhoods. Some of that work began last week, following multiple requests from neighbors, Menino, and turnpike officials.

A neighborhood activist vowed to continue to scrutinize the project, especially any effort by the developer to obtain public funds. The developers "are still assuming that Massachusetts public subsidies will pay both their costs and their profits, so full financial disclosure is more necessary than ever," said the activist, Ned Flaherty, who lives around the corner in the South End from the construction site.

Beal said it is premature to discuss any sources of funding for the project until the review is complete. "Until we know the final cost, there is no point in addressing the financing," he said, adding that the review should be finished by mid-October.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.

 

[Tim Jackson]

Re: Columbus Center

While I am excited to see Related and the Beal Cos. come on to try and save this project, I am still going to stand by earlier point that, unless these developers can find a way to build this without public subsidy (which is probably unlikely at this point), I am unfortunately going to have stand against this project. I am keeping my fingers crossed, though, as if they can solve that problem, then I am all on board for this project 100%.

Here is another article, relating more to the clean up of the construction site rather than the new developers coming on board:

Developers clean up Columbus Center construction

by Linda Rodriguez
managing editor
Wednesday Sep 3, 2008

Dormant site has been bad for business, locals say

After nearly five months of e-mails and calls from local residents and business owners to city officials, the developers of the beleaguered Columbus Center have agreed to clean up the interior of their now dormant construction sites.

Representatives of the city and the developers met with a local business owner on Aug. 29 at Parcel 16 - the rock-strewn site that was to become Frieda Garcia Park, but has for the last few months been the inactive staging site of the Columbus Center construction. As they watched, contractors hauled away rusted scrap metal and lumber from the site, enclosed in chain link fencing and torn green tarp. Since the developers abruptly halted construction on the project in March, citing a lack of financial backing, the site has been essentially vacant.

"It?s dangerous, it?s unsightly and it?s hurting business," said Anthony Gordon, pointing to the fact that construction site has taken over the sidewalk on nearly all sides.

Gordon says his primary concern is that at a minimum, the developers should move the construction back to the original property lines and off the city sidewalks. Gordon owns and lives in a building that overlooks the dormant site; he rents the first floor of his building to restaurants 33 and Stix, which he says have both suffered since the site was abandoned and the project left to founder.

"This is not very nice to look at," he said, adding that Bertucci?s restaurant, which bordered the site, recently chose not renew its lease and the space remains vacant. "It?s tough for [the restaurants] and I want to make sure they don?t go out of business."

Gordon, who also served on the Columbus Center Citizen?s Advisory Committee when the project was first announced and the Construction Committee after, says he?s been with the project throughout its process and had expected a certain amount of discomfort during construction. His building, a red-brick former stables built in the late 19th century, is sandwiched between the corpse of the Columbus Center and the bustling Clarendon project. That project has been very responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood; the Columbus Center had been somewhat attentive, he said, before the project abruptly stopped.

"Right now, I?m just trying to get some normalcy while they try to revive the project," he said, adding that cleaning the interior of the site "should have been done a long time ago."

While city representatives said they could not speak to Gordon?s specific concern regarding the sidewalks and property lines, they did say that the Aug. 29 clean-up session was prompted by neighborhood concern.

"The community brought these concerns to me in e-mail and phone calls," said Tabitha Bennett, the Mayor Thomas Menino?s liaison to the South End and Bay Village. Bennett, along with a representative of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), sent an e-mail to members of the Bay Village and Ellis South End neighborhood associations and residents of the affected streets, as well as to members of the Columbus Center Construction Committee, indicating that city would be holding the developers accountable to maintain the sites. The e-mail outlined measures such as the twice weekly monitoring of rat traps, trash removal inside the site, the continued clean-up efforts of Project Place on the outside perimeter of the project, and the replacement of torn and graffitied green fencing.

"The main role of the city has been sort of as mediator between the residents and the developers," said Nick Martin of the Mayor?s Press Office, also present for the Aug. 29 cleaning. "The mayor has made it clear that whatever the state the project is in, it still needs to remain safe and clean for the residents in this area."

Martin was unable to comment on the future of the project or what the clean-up efforts may indicate about its future. Likewise, the developers of the project, Winn Development and its California-based partners, issued a statement through a spokesperson that was vague on the project?s future: "The neighbors in the South End and Back Bay deserve to have a site that is maintained. In response to neighborhood concerns, and the Mayor?s continued desire to have a clear site, we initiated a clean-up operation last week, which will continue over the next several weeks. We feel this is an important interim step as we continue to make every effort to move forward on this project."

Though what the push to clean up the site augurs for the future of the project remains unclear, community members can expect answers soon: Mac Daniel, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the agency that holds the lease with the Columbus Center developers, confirmed that the authority will be meeting with the developers of the project and with representatives of the city and the BRA on Sept. 25. South End News initially learned of the meeting from community members planning on attending, however, Daniel was unable to confirm whether the local residents would also be invited to the meeting. This would be the first meeting to include all interested parties at one time since the developers requested an 18-month moratorium on construction in April.

"I don?t know what is going to be discussed at this meeting, but certainly from the Turnpike?s perspective, we want to finally shore up the request for the 18-month extension," he said. "But more importantly, ensure that the most recent clean up around the site as well as future clean ups will continue if the extension is granted."

Daniel said that he was unsure what would be worked out at the meeting, but said, "We would like to see the site brought back to its pre-construction state if again, if the 18-month extension is granted."

Linda Rodriguez can be reached at lrodriguez@southendnews.com

LINK

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

State House News Service, September 8, 2008 5:16:59 PM EDT

[Size=+2]State Capitol Briefs:

COLUMBUS CENTER PROJECT HIRES NEW PR FIRM[/size]

As a pair of development consultants attempts to save the $800 million project aimed at linking Boston?s Back Bay and South End neighborhoods, the project has picked up a new public relations shop. _ McDermott Ventures, a public affairs and strategic communications firm, replaces Regan Communications and its chief executive officer, Alan Eisner, on the troubled Columbus Center project.

Regan will still work for Winn/Cassin Development, one of the owners of the project, according to Stephen Dunleavy, general manager for Regan Communications, but won?t handle the project. _ McDermott Ventures represents The Beal Companies and The Related Companies, the two developers trying to rescue the project.

?When Related Companies and Beal were retained as development consultants for the Columbus Center project, the development team asked that all communications be coordinated through one party,? said Brooke Botello, a senior account executive at the firm. _ ?McDermott Ventures has represented the Beal/Related team for the past five years and will handle all external communications during the analysis.?

Other McDermott clients include The New England Aquarium, The Boston Globe, and Filene?s Basement. _ McDermott Ventures also features on its website a twice-weekly local development and transportation column by former Globe reporter Thomas Palmer, who often covered the project for the paper before he took a buyout this year. _ He is now an ?independent communications consultant,? according to the site.

Seeking an 18-month extension to resolve funding problems with private financing, the project?s developers meet with officials from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which owns the air rights to the area, on Sept. 15. _ ?The focus for the turnpike will be trying to finalize the terms of the 18-month extension, but more importantly, making sure the site is cleaned and maintained during that hiatus,? said Mac Daniel, a Turnpike spokesman. _ Turnpike executive director Alan LeBovidge won?t attend the meeting, but will be at a community meeting on the project Sept. 25.

Earlier this year, the Patrick administration pulled back $20 million in project grants and loans, which had come under fire from House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi as a form of corporate welfare.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Consultants tapped for financial review of Columbus Center[/size]

by Scott Kearnan, South End News Contributor ? September 11, 2008

Though their construction site has been dormant since March, developers of the Columbus Center have tapped new resources to push forward with the massive residential/retail complex. The owners of the development, including Boston?s Winn Development, have retained Related Properties of New York and the Beal Companies of Boston to serve as development consultants on the project. The consultants have been asked to conduct a thorough review of the project and determine how, or whether, the Columbus Center should move forward.

?Both The Beal Companies and The Related Companies have been retained as development consultants to perform a review of Columbus Center, which will include an evaluation of costs to determine the financial viability of the project,? said Bruce Beal Sr., of the Beal Companies. Beal is developing The Clarendon, a luxury condo development located near the proposed Columbus Center site. ?As owners of the neighboring site The Clarendon, we care deeply about the future of these parcels,? added Beal.

In a Boston Globe article published last week, Beal elaborated that his team was ?excited and encouraged by what we?ve seen so far,? though he declined to reveal specifics.

The current moratorium on construction reflects the Columbus Center?s financial woes: Work on the center, an $800 million project that would be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike by the South End/Back Bay border, began in November 2007, but was abruptly stopped in March 2008. At the time a spokesman for Winn Development, Alan Eisner, said the developers had concerns about the project?s finances and that they were waiting to hear about the status of loans and grants they hoped to receive from the state. Shortly after Winn halted construction those loans and grants fell through. In April, Governor Deval Patrick?s administration denied the developers? application for a $20 million Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs grant, better known as a MORE grant, and redirected the $10 million from the grant that it had preliminarily awarded to the project away from Columbus Center and towards other unrelated projects. Patrick?s office cited the halt to construction as a sign that the developers were not ready to begin immediate work on the project. The loss of the MORE grant prompted MassHousing to pull out of more than $20 million in loans it had agreed to give the project. MassHousing argued that the MORE grant funding was crucial to the success of the project (see ?Columbus Center hits more snags,? April 10).

Since then, the construction site has been essentially abandoned, developers have scrambled to find new funding, and neighborhood residents - particularly those on Cortes and Isabella Streets directly overlooking the site - have complained about the adverse effects the abandoned construction site has had on quality of life: lost parking signs, closed sidewalks, unsightly debris and the practical dangers of a construction zone left unattended with no clear sign of when or if development will continue.

?There are delays, and we haven?t been pleased with them. They?ve probably frustrated us as much as they have the residents,? said Mac Daniel, spokesperson for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA). The MTA is currently leasing the land for the Columbus Center project, and has been in talks with the developers since March to determine whether to grant their requested 18-month ?continuance on any further construction.?

The parties have yet to reach a decision, and the protracted talks have exacerbated local frustrations. At a neighborhood meeting in May 2008, MTA executive director Alan LeBovidge promised concerned residents that the agency would entertain negotiations with the developers for just one more month; if there was no assurance of continued progress at that point, said LeBovidge, the MTA would assume that ?this [construction] is not going to happen? and would press for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area (see ?Columbus Center countdown,? May 29).

Some rehabilitation has taken place: at the end of August, the developers initiated a clean-up process that is intended to address some of the neighborhood concerns. But with the lease negotiations continuing well past the last issuance of a one-month deadline, residents remain concerned about the continual postponement of a decision and what it bodes for the lumbering fossil of the project.

?We feel the project is important enough that we move carefully during the negotiation process and not act hastily,? said Daniel. ?We?ve been frustrated by the delays, but at the same time we hope to make the necessary inroads.?

The next opportunity to push things forward is a meeting between the developers and the MTA on Sept. 15. ?If there is still an impasse reached, then I think the executive director?s words to the residents back in May will hold true,? added Daniels. Another meeting, scheduled for Sept. 25, will again bring together the MTA with residents for a status update and the opportunity to address questions and concerns.

Moving forward, the answers to some of those questions will also come from a different source. According to the State House News Service, McDermott Ventures will replace Regan Communications as the public relations firm handling the project.

?When Related Companies and Beal were retained as development consultants for the Columbus Center project, the development team asked that all communications be coordinated through one party,? read a statement provided to South End Newsby McDermott Ventures, explaining the PR switch. ?McDermott Ventures has represented the Beal/Related team for the past five years and will handle all external communications during the analysis.?

Link to South End News site: http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=80261

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center update: Sept. 25 meeting postponed[/size]

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center Update[/size]

Meetings indicate movement on project

South End News ? September 25, 2008 ? by Scott Kearnan

A meeting scheduled for Sept. 25 between neighborhood residents and developers of the Columbus Center project has been cancelled due to an internal scheduling conflict. The meeting, originally announced in the South End News two weeks ago, would have been the third major meeting in ten days between organizations involved with the development of the beleaguered project.

The meetings have yet to yield any identifiable progress on a construction site that has remained dormant, save sporadic clean-up efforts, since March of this year. But rumblings have emerged that The Beal Companies of Boston and Related Companies of New York, tapped earlier this month as financial consultants by the Columbus Center developers, might be identifying ways to save the cash-strapped project.

Earlier this month, and shortly after Beal and Related were identified as consultants by the owners of the project, Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) spokesperson Mac Daniel confirmed that a meeting was set between the developing parties and the MTA for Sept. 15. The MTA is currently leasing the land for the Columbus Center project, and has been in talks with the developers since March to determine whether to grant their requested 18-month ?continuance on any further construction.?

Neighborhood residents, concerned about the practical and aesthetic repercussions of a permanent construction zone and eyesore, have been clamoring for a resolution and have grown increasingly frustrated with postponed deadlines for a decision. At a neighborhood meeting in May 2008, MTA executive director Alan LeBovidge promised residents that the agency would entertain negotiations with the developers for just one more month; if there was no assurance of continued progress at that point, said LeBovidge, the MTA would assume that ?this [construction] is not going to happen? and would press for full rehabilitation of the razed construction area [see ?Columbus Center countdown,? May 29].

Negotiations did continue, and when pressed for an explanation by South End News, MTA spokesperson Daniel identified the Sept. 15 meeting as the new goalpost for progress.

?There are delays, and we haven?t been pleased with them. They?ve probably frustrated us as much as they have the residents,? said Daniel at the time. ?If there is still an impasse reached [after September 15], then I think the executive director?s words to the residents back in May will hold true.?

Since the statement, Daniels has not returned multiple phone calls inquiring about the Sept. 15 meeting, which was closed to reporters, and negotiations remain ongoing between the Columbus Center developers and the MTA.

On Sept. 17, another meeting was held between the developers, representatives of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and a small handful of community residents.

Among the residents was Ned Flaherty, a longtime critic of the project. Following the meeting, Flaherty began circulating via e-mail a memo of notes gleaned from the discussion. According to Flaherty, Beal?s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Peter Spellios identified costs associated with building seven acres of tunnels underneath the Columbus Center complex as the single most prohibitive element in moving the project forward. Flaherty said that the meeting emphasized a search for ?cost cutting? alternatives.

Other attending residents came away with a different analysis of the meeting. ?I don?t think I recall tunnels being mentioned,? said John Shope of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association. ?The discussion was mainly about finding ways to construct the site platform [over the turnpike] in a way that was financially viable.?

The development team says that all angles of the project are still being examined, and that it is too early to deem any single facet as the most prohibitive element.

?The tunnel costs are only part of our analysis,? said a statement released by The Beal Companies. ?We are reviewing the engineering and construction methodologies of the entire project top to bottom to be sure that every possible cost efficiency is explored and implemented.?

Also aired at the meeting was a new deadline for a viability report, to be prepared by the development team, on the future of the project.

?They said they would have news for the community and for us by November 15,? said BRA spokesperson Jessica Shumaker. ?At that point, they would come back and say whether they thought the project should go forward.? Shumaker categorized the Sept. 17 meeting as an ?update? and an opportunity for the developers to announce that ?they will be studying ways to bring the cost [of the project] down, and deciding from there whether to proceed.?

A follow up statement released by The Beal Companies did not reiterate the Nov. 15 deadline: ?We anticipate having a recommendation for the development team by the end of the year, at the latest.?

However, the development team also acknowledged community frustrations over the stalled project. ?The truth is, we would like to get back to the community as soon as possible,? said the developers in a statement. ?But we first need some time to complete our study. That said, we sympathize with a community who has seen a tremendous amount of starts and stops and will do our best to meet deadlines we have discussed with the community.?

Critics like Flaherty aren?t holding their breath. ?MTA and its developers have missed every major deadline they set for themselves over the last 13 years,? said Flaherty. ?So it?s no surprise that this week?s meeting ... wasn?t held.?

Other residents feel more comfortable with the level of communication.

?Frankly, I think we?ve had lots of communication,? said Shope. ?My position is that I don?t want to be invited to a meeting unless there is something to discuss.?

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=80825

 

[Tim Jackson]

Re: Columbus Center

Here is another article from the Back Bay Sun regarding the canceled meeting:

Columbus Center update: Sept. 25 meeting postponed

by Sandra Miller

The Columbus Center project continues to stop and start and stop again. A September 25 meeting about Columbus Center with the Cortes Street neighborhood and the Mass. Turnpike has been postponed, due to a schedule conflict from the Turnpike?s executive director. A rescheduled meeting will be announced soon, a Turnpike spokesperson said.

In the meantime, a meeting last week with the Columbus Center Community Construction Committee had developers stating they are still looking to build the deck all at once.

?They would not be changing the project,? said Deputy Director for Community Planning Randi Lathrop. ?They are particularly focusing on the platform.?

For 13 years, residents, city and state officials and developers have been working on the ambitious Columbus Center, which promises to link the South End and Back Bay by building over the turnpike and creating a hotel, residential, and retail complex. The project has received public subsidies totaling $116 million, but when the developers? request for more money was rejected, the project stalled and developers requested an 18-month extension to find more financing. The deadline to approve that extension has passed.

According to the cost consultants investigating the financial viability of the project, they may have found a less expensive way to build the seven acres of tunnels below the skyscraper complex.

that was first proposed 13 years ago. Beal?s Senior Vice President and General Counsel Peter Spellios said the "deck" would be called a "platform" due to a different and cheaper engineering technology that can be used. Such changes to the project are the key to making the project affordable, said Spellios.

Before the end of the year, if approved, the project will resume construction, continue its temporary suspension, or be canceled, said McDermott. City officials confirmed that the project would not differ from plans made and approved in 2003.

However, all involved look anxiously to a viability report due November 15 from Related Properties of New York and the Beal Companies of Boston. They were hired by the project?s owners, MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. and WinnCompanies, to evaluate the center?s viability, said Bruce Beal Sr., of the Beal Companies. CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) is the primary financial backer of the project.

"The current go-or-no-go analysis is the final round, and there will be no more chapters after that," said Pamela McDermott, a spokesperson for the developers.

The meeting was also attended by McDermott Ventures? president and executive vice president, Mayor's Neighborhood Coordinator Tabitha Bennett, BRA Senior Planner Mary Knasas, John Herbert of the South End Ellis Neighborhood Association, John Shope of Bay Village Neighborhood Association, Lynn Andrews of Cortes Street residents, and Karen Lassiter and Joel Miller of Pope Condominium.

The BRA reports that the Columbus Center Committee is working with the developers to fix up the site in the meantime. ?They are going to move equipment and trailers, see if parking can be restored, and clean up the site as much as it can,? said Lathrop. ?Beal and Related will come back around November 15, and we?ll be meeting back with the construction committee.?

That?s another dubious deadline, said Columbus Center watchdog Ned Flaherty, of 75 Clarendon Street Condominium, who also attended last week?s meeting. He notes a long list of missed deadlines, including those set by the Turnpike Authority to approve the construction delay, a November 2007 deadline to have bank financing by January 15, then February 15. In April, the owners said they would regroup, talk to lenders, work with city and state officials, and come back with a new plan, according to one news story. But Columbus Center President Roger Cassin came back empty handed from a visit to his California financial backers.?We are spending $5 million a month on this,? Cassin told Banker & Tradesman. In May, the MTA set a June deadline to renegotiate, but the developers again missed that deadline, so the MTA extended that deadline to July. ?The owners missed that deadline, too,? said Flaherty.

Flaherty said experts disagree on whether the project can be saved, citing a meeting held last week where air rights developer John Rosenthal reportedly told Boston Redevelopment Authority and turnpike officials that such a project is cost-prohibitive, and that he believes that most of Boston's 23 air rights properties will never get developed.

According to Flaherty, the MTA still needs to revise the project?s lease. ?The developers defaulted on the 99-year lease signed in May 2006, when they failed to start construction on time and failed to obtain bank loans,? he said. ?Under the original lease, the seven acres of tunnels were to have been completed in October 2008, but nothing was ever built. And the latest version of that lease allows the developers to postpone completion to 2025.?

He also noted a revised agreement is needed with CSX, the freight railroad that owns some of the rail lines that would run through tunnels underneath the project; and a new lease is needed for Manulife Insurance, which donated land and funding for Garcia Park, but meanwhile has rented the land to Columbus Center for temporary equipment and materials storage.

LINK

The two quotes in bold above I did not see in the South End News article (Maybe I just missed them when I read it). It looks like we are heading into crunch time. Hopefully, Beal and Related can work on the deck and get the cost cut back significantly, dump most or all of their public subsidy, and then start construction soon. While I believe that the resuming of construction prior to the end of the year is a bit ambitious, I feel like with these two new companies in the mix, CC just may have another chance at life...

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]More bad news for Columbus Center?[/size]

www.bankerandtradesman.com/issues/5_358/teller/201105-1.html

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Frustration is only thing rising, it seems[/size]

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/04/frustration_is_only_thing_rising_it_seems/?page=1

 

[KentXie]

Re: Columbus Center

In fact CC is a good example. I believe CC when it was first propose was actually taller than it is proposed now but due to community opposition, the building had to shave off a few stories which leads to a smaller revenue.

No. _ Re-read the public records.

The Environmental Notification Form, dated 30 November 2001 (on page 4 of 56), proposed 29 stories. _ The 99-year lease, signed 2 May 2006 (on page 29 of 3,400), is for 35 stories. _ The proposal grew by 6 floors, and by the time the lease was signed, the square footage more than doubled, from 713,000 to 1,490,800.

Community opposition, objections from city staff, and threats from elected officials had no impact, because the development team owned the majority of seats on the review panel. _ The 7 members sitting in seats owned by the developer voted in favor; the 4 democratically nominated members voted in opposition.

SOUTH END PROJECT REVISED
Boston globe
Author(s): Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff Date: November 22, 2002 Page: E3 Section: Business
The South End last night got a look at the latest shape of the Columbus Center mixed-use project that has grown several stories taller at the request of community residents.

Developers Roger Cassin and Arthur Winn of Columbus Center Associates unveiled a 35-story hotel and condominium tower, adjacent to a 14-floor residential building and park, to be built over the Massachusetts Turnpike between Clarendon and Berkeley streets. A parking garage framed on three sides by townhouses and apartments would complete the project in its latest proposed form, extending to Arlington Street.

Building on Turnpike air rights but overseen by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the developers have spent almost two years working with a Community Advisory Council on the shape of the buildings, economic uses, and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.

In an unforeseen twist, a majority of the community group wanted more height in the tower at the Clarendon end, because it helped allow for lower height and less impact for other parcels.

"Ninety-five percent of the people were pleased with the presentation," said Donovan Walker, who operates the Showdown Youth Development Inc. program, located near the project site. "There are still some people with their own doubts."

Originally planned for only two parcels, the project grew to three several months ago, when the community supported a low-rise parking garage on a third space over the Turnpike. That expansion not only helped scale down the other two buildings but covered up yet another gash through the city, the depressed Turnpike roadway between Berkeley and Arlington streets.

Cassin and Winn pledged to build only as much as they needed to make the project economically feasible, and they have shared their financial analyses with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, city, and community. The authority is contributing the cost of concrete platforms required to build over an open roadway.

Even in a city renowned for difficult gestation periods for new buildings, Columbus Center stands out. Its draft environmental impact report, presented yesterday, marked the fourth major design or redesign since the proposal - for 38-floor and 33-floor towers - was filed in March 2001.

PROJECT OVER PIKE TO BE LOWER AND WIDER
Boston Globe
Author(s): Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff Date: July 9, 2002 Page: D1 Section: Business
Having cleared two big obstacles - a clouded land purchase and protests from neighborhood activists - the developers who plan to build Columbus Center over the turnpike are moving forward this week with a project that's almost as big as they first envisioned.

The profile of the $400 million mixed-use project between the Back Bay and the South End has been reduced, though. Originally, it was to include a 38-story tower; that has been scaled back to 29 floors. And the development would cover not two blocks over the Massachusetts Turnpike, but three, from Arlington Street to Clarendon Street.

Columbus Center Associates plans to formally notify the Boston Redevelopment Authority of the changes on Thursday.

Most of the winnowing down and spreading out of the project was done late last year, after neighborhood groups booed the early plans for a 38-floor tower.

The Citizens Advisory Council was instrumental in persuading the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow the developers to spread the project over three air-rights parcels, not two, and to separate a garage from the heart of the complex.

"I was really pleased with the idea that came out of that whole discussion of relocating parking onto a structure over the highway," the turnpike's chief development officer, Stephen J. Hines, said yesterday. "That really helped make the thing work pretty much from every perspective - and helps make it work financially." But another hurdle appeared this year.

Columbus Center's development partners, Arthur Winn and Roger Cassin, had purchased a small parking lot near the Hard Rock Cafe, to be included in the complex. But a title search found that a portion of that land was owned by John Hancock Financial Services.

Negotiations over the developer's attempt to buy the small lot collapsed this year, and Hancock announced it would sell the piece of land only as part of a package of real estate in the area.

"They finally gave me what I wanted, which was a definitive answer," Cassin said recently. "I would have preferred `yes,' but `no' was second best."

The architects, CBT Childs Bertman Tseckares Inc., are now designing a hotel entrance and parking around Hancock's land, and that is what city and turnpike officials will see on Thursday, when the developers update the plans they had filed. The developers hope to begin work in mid-2003 and finish three years later.

About five years ago, the Turnpike Authority chose Winn and Cassin to develop two parcels over the highway, between Berkeley and Clarendon, along Columbus Avenue.

But the 38-floor hotel, condominiums, and apartment complex they were planning met with immediate opposition. It was just too big, many neighbors said...

Oh wait a minute. I guess I wasn't wrong about CC as a tower and a complex being shrunken in size. The original proposal was for a 38-story and a 33 story tower that, in a second proposal due to public outcry, did one of the tower shrunk in height to 29 stories. Even though Ned said that the tower then grew 6 more floors, it was still 3 floors less than the original proposal and the second tower dropped by 19 floors to 14 stories. So Ned, the holes in your explanations are starting to show up. As hard as it is going to be for you to understand this, but Ned, you were WRONG! Get your fact straight or we will continue to take your posts with little substance.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]MTA Offers Few Answers[/size]
(Boston Courant, 25 October 2008)

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Residents frustrated by lack of activity and answers
regarding Columbus Center[/size]

Back Bay Sun, 28 October 2008

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Source: Deval bowed under pressure from Wilkerson[/size]

Boston Herald, 4 November 2008

Gov. Deval Patrick, surrounded by Sen. Diane Wilkerson, Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez, and Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, cheers after signing a repeal of the 1913 law that prevented out-of-state gay couples from having their marriages recognized in other states.


Gov. Deval Patrick faced immense pressure from former ally Sen. Dianne Wilkerson to push through public funding for a highly controversial development despite the objections of House leadership, the Herald has learned.

Patrick enraged House Speaker Sal DiMasi and others in the Legislature when he approved a $10 million economic development grant to the Back Bay-based Columbus Center complex last year.

?(The Patrick administration) made it very clear that they were under a lot of pressure from Wilkerson,? said a State House source, who said the governor didn?t give colleagues any advance notice of the controversial grant.

?Prudence - and the numbers - tell us this is not a wise use of tax dollars, and we hope you will reconsider this grant and find a job creating use for this $10 million,? wrote Rep. Marty Walz (D-Boston) in an angry letter to the governor also signed by Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston) and DiMasi.

The $800 million Columbus Center complex championed by Wilkerson has come under renewed scrutiny since the FBI charged Wilkerson with accepting $23,500 in bribes, sending out a flurry of subpoenas, including one to the center?s developer, Arthur Winn.

While Patrick aides admit Wilkerson was advocating for the development, they said she wasn?t the only reason he backed the grant.

?The decision to fund this project was made on the merits, both the economic development and job potential as well as the air rights deal for the Mass. Turnpike,? said Patrick spokesman Kyle Sullivan. ?Once it became clear that the project would have difficulty creating the jobs and economic development benefits set forth in the grant, the administration revoked the funding.?

The grant money has since been revoked in part because the privately owned development did not qualify. The project is currently on hold as the financiers determine whether to move ahead without the state funding.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1129871
____________________________________________

For all the forum members who:
● did not read the lease clauses about 100% private ownership;
● did not read the other public records about 100% private ownership;
● did not read the newspaper articles about public infrastructure; and/or
● still assume that this project contains some public infrastructure. . .

It does not.

The next-to-last sentence in this article is significant. _ In the summer of 2007, I launched an effort to ensure that the minimum statutory requirements set by the legislature are applied equally to every applicant, and that ineligible applicants are disqualified._ By the fall of 2007, this applicant had been disqualified up through the Secretary level of state government._ Yet when Governor Patrick denied the $20 million M.O.R.E. grant in spring 2008, he was still hinting that once the developers had possession of the remaining $780 million from other sources, they were eligible to reapply._ But since then, state officials have revoked the grant, because Columbus Center was never qualified to even apply for it in the first place.

M.O.R.E. grants are issued only to build publicly owned infrastructure, but Columbus Center has none._ It is 100% privately owned, and thus it remains ineligible for this grant program.

Last winter, the developers did ask MTA to rewrite their lease to declare the 7 acres of tunnels as publicly owned infrastructure._ But MTA refused.

No one in state government knows the 99-year cost to inspect, maintain, repair, dismantle, remove, and replace an air rights tunnel._ Those costs are now a developer?s responsibility during construction, and then the condominium owners? responsibility for the remainder of any 99-year lease._ So with no way to identify, control, and fund those costs over 99 years, MTA decided not to assume them, and the entire project remains 100% privately owned.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center developers step up clean-up of construction site[/size]

South End News ? 12 November 2008 ? by Aviva Gat

As part of a continued effort to clean up the Columbus Center site while the development undergoes a review, the Columbus Center team announced Nov. 12 that they would focus on restoring the sidewalks on Clarendon, Berkeley and Stanhope Streets._ The cleanup is in response to neighborhood concerns about the practical and aesthetic repercussions of a construction zone that has been dormant since March 2008.

?We all understand that in these difficult economic times some developments will need more time to complete their projects,? said Mayor Thomas Menino, who asked for a clean site during the transition period._ ?But residents and neighborhoods can not be left with vacant construction sites that inconvenience businesses and residents? ability to live and work.?

The development, a massive $800 million hotel, condo, and retail project meant to bridge the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods, is being reviewed by The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York, who have been hired as consultants for the developers of Columbus Center (Winn-CUIP)._ Beal and Related are evaluating the costs of all aspects of the development to determine ways to save the project, which stalled earlier this year when funding sources dried up._ The consulting team is also meeting with city and state officials, as well as community members to understand the issues and analyze the challenges for moving forward._ The developer expects to have a recommendation before the end of the year.

?The Columbus Center team understand the responsibility they have to their neighbors,? Menino said._ ?And I am pleased that today they will continue to restore this area while they look for new ways to complete this project.?

The clean-up includes re-opening sidewalks, removing barriers and fencing, adding temporary sidewalks and handicap ramps and making a new fence line on Berkeley to meet up with the existing Massachusetts Turnpike Authority bridge fence.

Much of the restoration work on the parcels is complete, including scaffolding and trailer removal, relocation of fencing, restoring parking spaces and sidewalks for public use and ongoing debris removal, weed and rodent control.

For more information see www.columbuscenter.com

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=83276