News ONLY Columbus Center Thread

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Cleanup underway at Columbus Center[/size]

 

[Suffolk 83]

Re: Columbus Center

4 page article from the Globe/ Boston.com today... Mr. Flaherty quoted:

Columbus Center questions
Wilkerson's ties to developer and business community fall under federal scrutiny
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / November 23, 2008
The federal subpoena arrived at the office of developer Arthur Winn soon after the arrest of then-state Senator Dianne Wilkerson last month.

Graphic Development in Dianne Wilkerson's former Senate district
Winn was among the former senator's earliest and most ardent political supporters. Their politics were different: he, a wealthy Republican; she, a liberal Democrat. Still, Winn and his business associates contributed more than $18,200 to her campaign account since 2002, according to state records.

The developer and politician had common policy interests: affordable housing and public subsidies for the $800 million Columbus Center project in Boston.

Wilkerson has been a vocal backer of Winn's most ambitious and luxurious project, waging a campaign to win more than $70 million in taxpayer-funded grants and low-cost loans even as community members and fellow legislators opposed the subsidies.

Winn's firm, WinnCompanies, received a subpoena from federal authorities on Oct. 28, one of many sent to government leaders and business executives as part of an 18-month investigation of Wilkerson by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Neither Winn nor any of his developments were referenced in a 32-page federal affidavit outlining public corruption charges against the former senator, and he has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the case. But his subpoena shows that investigators are examining Wilkerson's contacts with powerful figures who worked closely with her on a range of government business.

Columbus Center - a condominium, hotel, and retail development - is the most prominent project where Winn and Wilkerson intersect.

Her public advocacy of public subsidies for the project began in 2005. Federal authorities began investigating Wilkerson in early 2007 and allegedly caught her taking eight bribes totaling $23,500 from an FBI informant and an undercover agent. The affidavit accuses her of taking payments in exchange for securing a coveted city liquor license and crafting legislation paving the way for a development in Roxbury.

Wilkerson, who resigned from the Senate last week after being formally indicted, did not return multiple phone calls, and her at torney Max Stern, declined to comment. US Attorney Michael Sullivan has said the investigation remains active and that additional charges will be filed if called for by the evidence. On Friday, federal agents arrested City Councilor Chuck Turner on charges he accepted a $1,000 bribe.

Winn, through a spokesman, declined to comment for this story.

Wilkerson's support for Columbus Center, back then and now, drew questions from opponents who wondered why she so strongly backed a development that primarily consists of luxury condominiums, not the affordable housing for low-income constituents she championed.

"We didn't understand it," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Back Bay Democrat who opposed subsidies for Columbus Center. "She seemed intent on getting taxpayer money for the project, but no one really knew why it became such a priority."
In prior interviews with the Globe, Wilkerson touted the project's potential for creating jobs within her district, pledging to go after "every pot and every pool of money" to assist the development, which has been hotly debated since it was proposed in 1996.

Graphic Development in Dianne Wilkerson's former Senate district
Her relationship with Winn predates Columbus Center, stretching back more than 15 years, to when she first became involved in politics and was elected to the state Senate in 1993. Winn regarded Wilkerson as an articulate politician who could be an effective advocate for her district, according to business associates of Winn.

Both championed affordable housing. Winn, the largest provider of affordable housing in New England, currently manages more than 30 developments within Wilkerson's former district, which includes the highest concentration of subsidized housing in the state. He has used public subsidies to rehabilitate many of them, including the 532-unit Mission Main complex in Roxbury and the Castle Square development in the South End.

Since 2002, Winn and his business associates have contributed more than $18,200 to Wilkerson's campaigns, including $2,000 at a June 18, 2008, fund-raiser at the Bostonian Hotel that was attended by an undercover FBI agent who was investigating Wilkerson, according to state records and the FBI affidavit. Under state law, an individual can give a maximum of $500 to a public official in a calendar year.

Columbus Center includes some affordable housing - 44 of 460 condominium units are to be sold at below-market rates, but it is primarily being marketed as an upscale development featuring a hotel and shops. The project also promises about $60 million in public benefits, including parks and a pledge to pay for development of 45 additional affordable units to be located elsewhere in the city.

Officials in Mayor Thomas M. Menino's administration have supported the project, both because of its economic development potential and its ability to knit together the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods. The project received final approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm, in 2003, and top officials began backing attempts to get taxpayer subsidies to assist the project.

"It's our sense that these public monies are the only way this project is going to get off the ground," Harry Collings, then executive secretary of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said of Columbus Center in an interview with the Globe last year. "We feel the benefits far outweigh the public money's participation."

Among those who worked with Winn to gain support from the city was Stephen V. Miller, a politically connected Boston lawyer known for his work in licensing and development, as well as for his fund-raising efforts on behalf of city politicians.

The subpoena sent to Winn asks for his communications with Miller, who was identified by the Globe as a lawyer referenced in the FBI affidavit outlining the charges against Wilkerson

In the affidavit, Miller is described as helping Wilkerson obtain a city liquor license for a confidential informant working with the FBI. The informant, whom the Globe identified as Ronald Wilburn, allegedly gave Wilkerson thousands of dollars for her help in getting the liquor license - all while allowing authorities to secretly videotape and audiotape the transactions, according to the affidavit. Authorities have not accused Miller of any wrongdoing.

Graphic Development in Dianne Wilkerson's former Senate district
Miller, who works for the Boston firm McDermott, Quilty and Miller, was among the first lawyers Winn hired to work on Columbus Center. His firm is known for its success in advocating for clients within City Hall, where Winn was seeking permits and eventually taxpayer subsidies for his project.

Miller's work for Columbus Center was less about city zoning than it was about building relationships, according to executives and public officials involved in the debate over the project. He attended meetings in neighborhoods and private gatherings with city and state decision makers, helping to make a public case for the project. He also was involved in political fund-raising along with Winn, donating to Wilkerson and other public officials. Miller, who has donated $800 to Wilkerson since 2002, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

As Columbus Center moved forward in 2004 and 2005, Winn shifted his focus to obtaining public funding for the development, the price tag of which had grown to $500 million from $300 million because of rising construction costs. Winn was seeking taxpayer money to pay for a deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike to support the project. Typically, government officials approve public money for private ventures if they believe projects will spur more development or generate revenue for an area.

Up until then, Wilkerson had not regularly attended community meetings on the project, according to public officials who attended those meetings. But in the fall of 2005, she became one of its biggest supporters, vigorously advocating for public financing to get the project done.

State lawmakers opposed to public subsidies for Columbus Center took notice of Wilkerson's support in November 2005, when she advocated for a $4.3 million appropriation for the project in an economic stimulus bill in the state Legislature. In an interview with the Globe at the time, the senator called Columbus Center "my favorite project" and said the funding was for a "very small gap" in the financing.

The money was included in a Senate version of the bill, tripping alarms in the offices of opponents to public subsidies, including House Speaker Sal DiMasi.

"We had to scramble to kill it," said one legislative staffer, who is not authorized to speak publicly about such matters. "We weren't happy. We felt the developers had been pretty clear they were not going to seek public subsidies, and all of a sudden they were."

Winn and the development team, which included California-based MacFarlane Partners, said they never ruled out public financing.

Graphic Development in Dianne Wilkerson's former Senate district
Despite losing that fight, Wilkerson pressed on, taking her case to the city. The senator began supporting Winn's proposal to redraw Boston's empowerment zone, a 6.8-square-mile area that includes economically distressed areas from Dorchester and Jamaica Plain to the South Boston Waterfront. Inclusion in the zone would qualify Columbus Center for $32.5 million in tax-exempt loans and other tax credits.

The city's empowerment zone is administered by Boston Connects Inc., a private nonprofit organization responsible for initiating development and job-creation initiatives within its borders. Wilkerson is one of 30 public officials who serve as nonvoting members for the organization.

In April 2006, Winn's business partner, Roger Cassin, appeared before the board of Boston Connects to pitch a plan to include Columbus Center in the empowerment zone. Wilkerson, who attended the meeting, advocated for the proposal, telling board members that the development had been worked on for years and would produce significant benefits for city neighborhoods, according to minutes of the meeting.

Cassin told the Boston Connects board that Columbus Center would result in the creation of jobs for residents of distressed communities. He pledged to make best faith efforts to hire 60 percent of hotel employees from empowerment zone neighborhoods, which translates to about 150 jobs.

After his presentation, which included promised payments of more than $500,000 in fees and reimbursements to Boston Connects for its work to expand the empowerment zone, the organization's board voted to change the zone to include Columbus Center and other parcels over the Massachusetts Turnpike, essentially forming a narrow peninsula around the property. The move was also approved by HUD, but Winn never applied for the $32.5 million tax-exempt loan because of broader financial difficulties on the project.

Later in the year, Wilkerson stepped up her efforts even further, raising the issue of public subsidies with then-gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick, according to his aides. In July 2007, after Patrick took office, he gave preliminary approval to $10 million in state grants for Columbus Center, triggering a public fight with DiMasi and other lawmakers who immediately began questioning why the governor included the money.

When their inquiries led to Wilkerson, she was unapologetic. "There are some folks who may take issue with this, but the fact is Columbus Center is probably our best and biggest chance for new job creation for the city of Boston," she told the Globe at the time.

The project was slated to produce a total of 2,600 construction jobs and 360 permanent positions, mainly connected to its 35-story hotel. Opponents of public subsidies sharply questioned the project's economic impact, arguing only a fraction would go to local residents. "The amount of money Senator Wilkerson wanted to give to Columbus Center is disproportionate to the 20 or 30 jobs she might get for her constituents," said urban planning activist Ned Flaherty, who lives in the neighborhood.

Patrick aides who attended private meetings with Wilkerson about Columbus Center grants said the administration supported the subsidies regardless of her stance, because of the project's potential to create jobs, spur additional development, and generate revenue for the Commonwealth.

By the fall of last year, as Winn and his partners prepared to break ground on Columbus Center, soaring construction costs had pushed the price tag to $800 million. As an economic slowdown set in, Winn failed to obtain a $430 million loan for construction.

Last April, the Patrick administration withdrew state funding for Columbus Center, and the project has remained at a standstill. In September, the development team hired new consultants to examine whether the project remains financially viable and to build support among key officials. The consultants, a team of Beal Cos. and Related Co., recently met with DiMasi to discuss their efforts, according to one official who participated in the meeting. The parties were introduced by Winn's attorney, Miller.

Wilkerson, meanwhile, will be replaced in January by Sonia Chang-Diaz, the newly elected senator for the district. Chang-Diaz said in an interview she does not support public subsidies for Columbus Center.

"I was never convinced that this project, which is so much about the hotel and luxury condos, is the right investment for the limited economic development dollars we have," she said. "You have to ask what else could be done with those dollars that may bring stable, long-term job growth for the neighborhoods.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

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

Forum member Suffolk 83 omitted important graphics, text, and captions when he posted only the text of ?Columbus Center questions? (Boston Globe, 23 November 2008).

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Scott Van Voorhis: MTA demise adds hurdle to air rights development[/size]

 

[archboston]

Re: Columbus Center

I'd be on board with that plan. Hell, throw in the development around Mass Ave too:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/12/06/turnpike_fields_construction_plans/

So much of this seems to be putting the cart before the horse. It just boggles the mind how we can be in this situation after over a decade of planning.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]More of the same with new Columbus Center ownership[/size]

South End News, 3 December 2008

(Source: SEN staff)

Columbus Center?s future owners are just as deceptive as the current and former owners.

The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York are proving to be just as deceptive, evasive, and disrespectful of public process as Columbus Center?s former owners (Winn Development) and current owners (California pension plan and MacFarlane Partners)._ The Boston Globe reports that the future owners (Beal & Related) have been pitching revised proposals for the former and current owners, to ?build support among key officials? ? behind closed doors and with no public disclosure (?Columbus Center questions,? 23 November).

The former public relations firm began a news black-out on 8 July, either saying ?no comment? or else refusing to respond altogether._ Now the new public relations firm has followed suit, ignoring multiple public inquiries by mail, facsimile, and phone over the last two months.

No one knows whom the new owners met with, what they promised, or what the outcomes were._ Clearly, the development team is continuing its historical habit of cutting the public out of the process, and announcing results only when it?s too late for citizens to have any impact.

But far worse than back-room negotiating is the fact that the new owners gave dishonest answers to legitimate public questions._ At a city-sponsored neighborhood meeting on 17 September, community leaders asked Beal Senior Vice President & General Counsel Peter Spellios and McDermott Ventures President Pamela McDermott if they were buying the project, or funding it, or lobbying for it._ Backed by Boston Redevelopment Authority Deputy Director Randi Lathrop and other City officials, they denied all three efforts, saying that they were doing nothing but a routine ?cost-cutting analysis.?

Over two months later, the public learns from The Boston Globe that the truth is quite different.

Real estate industry profiteers argue that avoiding the public to cut private deals is excusable, because all developers do that._ It is indeed common._ But it is not ethical._ And it is inexcusable for a private project that would be built on public property, involving public assets, with enormous amounts of public money paying for its costs and its profits.

Even worse than the developers? recent behaviors are the actions of government agencies and elected officials._ We pay civil servants to advocate for us, not to work against us._ Given all this year?s bad news from city, state, and federal offices, there is no doubt about the harmful effects of government secrecy._ The Mayor and the Governor should stop hiding these negotiations, and disclose today:

? Who among our many civil servants met with these developers?
? What other meetings are pending?
? Why didn?t anyone tell the public in advance?
? What parts of their proposal did the developers change?
? What benefits did they delete?
? What profit-boosting components did they add?
? How did city and state officials respond?
? Why are the developers still asking that their costs and profits be paid for by
taxpayers?

The Beal & Related companies that are trying to buy this project for pennies on the dollar first masqueraded as mere cost-cutting accountants, and then excluded the public from re-negotiation discussions._ So they clearly don?t meet the minimum criteria necessary for air rights developers, because they are demanding no competition; are refusing a public process review; aren?t honoring the Turnpike Master Plan; and ? worst of all ? refuse to allow a Commonwealth-sponsored public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.

Did city and state agencies learn nothing after wasting the last 13 years, which ended in failure?_ As State Representative Martha Walz correctly urged on 28 March, it?s time to seek:_ (1) competitive bids, (2) from qualified developers, (3) who honor the Turnpike Master Plan, (4) with full financial disclosure, and (5) 100% private financing, (6) verified before construction starts._ Considering anything less just invites a duplicate debacle.

Contact Mayor Menino and Governor Patrick now._ Tell them it?s never acceptable to skip steps in a public process._ Tell them to halt these private meetings, and allow the public to join the re-negotiations.

Ned Flaherty is an urban planning activist, and a co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods. He has testified about Boston?s turnpike air rights development for 15 years.

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=opinion&sc=letters&sc3=&id=84173

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center left in limbo[/size]
South End News ? by Bessie King ? Wednesday Dec. 31, 2008

2008 brought inaction more than anything to the Columbus Center project.

In a year of ?change? the story remained the same with the proposed Columbus Center project._ Although some clean-up efforts were started and/or completed in 2008, complaints about and missed opportunities for the Columbus Center marked the last 12 months._ At one point scheduled to be completed by 2011, the Columbus Center ends the year firmly in limbo.

At the end of November The Beal Companies of Boston and The Related Companies of New York (Beal and Related) became the new developers of the project, an $800 million hotel, condo, and retail effort meant to bridge the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods._ The switch of ownership occurred without any notice to the public, which drew ire from critics, such as Ned Flaherty, an urban planning activist and co-founder of the Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods.

?The Beal & Related companies that are trying to buy this project for pennies on the dollar first masqueraded as mere cost-cutting accountants, and then excluded the public from re-negotiation discussions,? wrote Flaherty in South End News in December._ ?So they clearly don?t meet the minimum criteria necessary for air rights developers, because they are demanding no competition; are refusing a public process review; aren?t honoring the Turnpike Master Plan; and ? worst of all ? refuse to allow a Commonwealth-sponsored public audit of their actual costs, revenues, profits, and subsidies.?

Many questions regarding changes to the development?s original proposal, the use of taxpayer money, and whether or not the new proposal will honor the Turnpike Master Plan remain unanswered.

?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.?

Beal and Related are major developers and well known consultants._ Beal 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 Companies is a national developer known for its success on dense urban projects similar to the Columbus Center._ Related developed the Time Warner Center in New York and projects in California, Colorado, Florida, and elsewhere in the U.S.

Perhaps John Keith summed up the state of the Columbus Center best in an August 14 South End News opinion piece entitled ?Defeated Columbus Center is an orphan with a thousand fathers.?

?After 11 years of fits and starts, it appears to have fallen victim to its own lethargy, as much as anything else,? wrote Keith._ ?It seems unlikely the development will ever be built.?

http://www.mysouthend.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc3=&id=85212&pf=1

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: Columbus Center

$60m for Columbus Center

By Thomas Grillo
Boston Herald

Columbus Center developers hope to jumpstart the controversial project with a new public financing package worth up to $60 million.

Sources said the Beal Co., representatives for the California Urban Investment Partners and Boston-based Winn Development, the joint venture for the stalled project, are asking the Menino administration to approve District Improvement Financing.

While such financing is raised through bond sales and could rescue the project, critics insist it shortchanges taxpayers by giving most of the real estate taxes generated by the project to investors.

This is the latest attempt to salvage the $850 million development, which has been on hold for nearly a year due to funding woes. It has faced fierce opposition from State Reps. Byron Rushing, Martha M. Walz and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.

?If Columbus Center gets public financing, the money will go into a bottomless pit,? said Rushing.

Aaron Michlewitz, DiMasi?s spokesman, said, ?Tax incentives should not go into a project in such disarray.?

Peter Spellios, Beal?s attorney, declined to say whether his firm is seeking a tax break. ?Like every other development in this country, we are forced to examine all possible financing options,? he said.

Columbus Center, a 1.3-million-square-foot mixed-use project, was approved in 2003 and would include housing, a hotel, retail and parks. At one time, the project had $50 million in public financing, but most of it has expired as costs escalated and deadlines were missed.

Rushing said the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, owner of the air rights where Columbus Center would be built, should seek a new developer.

But Alan LeBovidge, the T?s executive director, said he is giving Beal more time to devise a solution. ?If we start the process all over again, it?s back to square one,? he said.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center still uncertain[/size]
By Casey Ross ? Globe Staff ? January 9, 2009

Consultants examining the Columbus Center condominium, hotel, and retail project in Boston say they need another two to three months to determine whether the proposed project is economically viable.

The Beal and Related Cos. yesterday said they need the additional time to develop a plan for moving forward with the $800 million development over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston.

The consultants initially said they would produce recommendations in October, but they have repeatedly pushed back the deadline. ?Discussions with potential financial sources are much more challenging, and have caused a delay in our ability to make final recommendations,? their statement said.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/01/09/columbus_center_still_uncertain/

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Public funds for private projects[/size]

Boston Globe, 24 January 2009

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../2009/01/24/public_funds_for_public_projects/

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Wilkerson admits she took at least $70,000; Columbus Center developer gave $10,000, sources say[/size]
Boston Globe, 25 January 2009

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma.../25/wilkerson_admits_she_took_at_least_70000/

 

[statler]

Re: Columbus Center

Boston Globe - January 27, 2009

Columbus Center investor questions Winn gift

By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | January 27, 2009

A schism is developing in the management of the $800 million Columbus Center project after the disclosure that developer Arthur Winn gave a $10,000 gift to former state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who was arrested last fall on bribery charges.

An executive with the project's largest investor, the California Urban Investment Partnership, said yesterday the gift could constitute a violation of its contract with Winn's development company. Wilkerson has been a vigorous supporter of public subsidies for Columbus Center, an ambitious project to build condominiums, stores, and a hotel over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston.

"CUIP has a strict policy regarding contributions to elected officials and does not condone any contribution of this type," Chuck Berman, managing principal of the investment fund, said in a statement. "If in fact these allegations are true, CUIP would find this to be a serious breach of its partnership agreement with Winn."

The statement raises the specter of discord on the project as its managers struggle to move forward after financial troubles halted construction last year. The partnership is the investment entity that manages money for the California state pension fund, the primary investor in Columbus Center since May 2006.

Winn's donation to Wilkerson, however, predated the pension fund's investment in Columbus Center. A spokeswoman for the fund would not elaborate on how the donation would violate its contract with Winn.

The Boston Globe reported Sunday that Winn gave Wilkerson $10,000 after she began soliciting money from supporters in 1997 to pay off mortgage and federal tax debts. Wilkerson obtained a letter from the state Ethics Commission granting her approval to accept the gifts.

Winn's money came in the form of a check sent to a Boston law firm that was handling the fund-raising for Wilkerson, according to a person briefed on the transaction. Winn was one of several executives who contributed to Wilkerson's fund.

The Ethics Commission's letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, did place conditions on the fund-raising, stating that Wilkerson could not accept gifts from anyone with business before the Legislature. If they later did have business before the Legislature, Wilkerson was advised to publicly disclose that she received the gifts.

Wilkerson voted in favor of public funding for Columbus Center in 2005 and lobbied state officials on multiple occasions to provide tens of millions of dollars in additional assistance to the development team. A spokesman for the Ethics Commission said yesterday it does not have any disclosures on file from Wilkerson.

A spokesman for Winn did not respond to questions yesterday.

Meanwhile, opponents of Columbus Center said the disclosure of Winn's payment to Wilkerson raises new concerns about the project, which is angling for money from a federal stimulus bill to help pay for a deck over the turnpike.

Aaron Michelwitz, the constituent services director for House Speaker Sal DiMasi said, "There doesn't seem to be any reason for the public to trust the process surrounding Columbus Center. This is a very hard pill to swallow."

Michelwitz said he intends to run for DiMasi's seat after the speaker's planned resignation today.

The Patrick administration did not rule out any funding for Columbus Center. "Decisions relative to any future public funding - whether state or federal - for any project in the Commonwealth will be based, as always, on merit," spokeswoman Kofi Jones said in a statement.

The California pension fund and its development consultant, MacFarlane Partners, said they will continue to seek a way to move forward with the project.

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

What's saddest to me about this whole sorry business is the fact that from the standpoint of the city's health and its urban design, Columbus Center was the most healing and best project proposed for this city since the unmatchable 19th Century developments we all love so much.

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Columbus Center investor questions Winn gift[/size]

Boston Globe, 27 January 2009

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/01/27/columbus_center_investor_questions_winn_gift/

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]What?s $10K among friends?[/size]
Boston Globe editorial, 28 January 2009

ALREADY under indictment on bribery charges, former state senator Dianne Wilkerson made a jaw-dropping disclosure in Sunday?s Globe, acknowledging she took more than $70,000 in gifts from friends and supporters. In an interview with reporter Donovan Slack, Wilkerson said that she took gifts of up to $10,000 per donor to pay off her own debts, and that the State Ethics Commission had advised her such gifts would be legal.

Yet one $10,000 gift came from a developer with interests in the former Democratic senator?s Boston district. If she thinks the ethics panel blessed such a gift, she?s reading the agency?s letters incorrectly.

No matter what, her disclosure still reveals a yawning chasm in the state?s campaign-finance and conflict-of-interest laws.

Big cash gifts to officials can be entirely legal ? a loophole that makes a mockery of the state?s $500 limit on individual campaign contributions. Under federal tax laws that are applicable to everyone, individuals can accept gifts of up to $12,000 without reporting them as income or paying taxes on them. Public officials in the state are under no special obligation to disclose such gifts.

There is one key restriction: Legislators must not take gifts from anyone with business before them ? and must disclose a past gift if a conflict of interest arises later. As the Ethics Commission advised Wilkerson in a confidential 1997 letter obtained by the Globe, the restriction applies when donors have an interest ?in any past, present, or future legislative act, including a bill, an appropriation, or a constituent service.? A 2003 letter was slightly muddier, citing a need ?to establish a link . . . between a gratuity and an official act.?

And yet a $10,000 gift to Wilkerson from Arthur Winn, a developer whose proposed Columbus Center project would be located in her former district, still appears to violate the law. Common sense applies: Developers rarely give large sums to public officials just to be friendly. And Wilkerson didn?t just lobby others on behalf of the project; she herself voted for state funding for it.

Under existing law, experts say, the burden falls on public servants to refuse improper gifts. Ethics legislation proposed by Governor Patrick would help by adding new criminal penalties for donors as well as for public officials who receive gifts for reasons connected to their public duties. Lawmakers should go further, by requiring public officials to disclose all gifts from non-relatives above a reasonable threshold ? say, $500.

Wilkerson?s situation also calls into question the role of the State Ethics Commission, which is required by statute to operate under strict confidentiality. When officials seek advice on whether certain conduct is legal, the agency?s informal advisory letters are kept secret. Even when the commission votes on formal opinions, the identity of the official in question is withheld.

Other states defer far less to the delicate sensibilities of their officials. In Rhode Island, requests for ethics advice are public records. The Ethics Commission takes them up in open session and issues public reports. Massachusetts needs the same transparency. Under these rules, Wilkerson?s constituents would have known a decade ago that she was asking about large gifts.

In her interview with the Globe, Wilkerson asserted that she never accepted money for any official act. ?If they?re going after corruption at the State House,? she said, ?I would be the 999th person on the list.? Such attempts to implicate others seem awfully self-serving, in light of FBI photos of Wilkerson stuffing cash into her sweater. Yet even if such conduct were widespread, how would anyone know? The state?s loose ethics rules do far too little to prevent improper payments ? or even bring them to light.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../articles/2009/01/28/whats_10k_among_friends/

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Who might be bailed out?[/size]

Boston Courant, 23 January 2009

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Why Columbus Center is disqualified from federal economic stimulus funds[/size]

1. Columbus Center is not fully permitted, shovel-ready, or criteria-compliant.

The developers claim that their proposal is ?fully permitted.?_ That is untrue._ MTA never issued permission to start building the 7 acres of tunnels which under the lease had to be finished by 30 November 2008._ That?s because the owners never delivered the $295 million in performance bonds that the 2008 lease amendment required them to buy.

The developers also claim that their proposal is ?shovel-ready.?_ It is not._ No bank issued the required construction loans._ And the new tunnel designs haven?t been submitted MTA for approval (because they haven?t been drawn yet), and haven?t been submitted to the sworn, independent tunnel safety engineers, as required by a new state law enacted 8 August 2008._ Furthermore, the developers recently shrank their tunnel budget from $295 million to only $50 million, raising critical new questions about tunnel durability and passenger safety.

With no bank loans, no approved tunnel designs, and no tunnel safety certification, the proposed tunnels are nowhere near the federal requirement for being ?shovel-ready.?

The developers also claim that the project ?meets the federal criteria for stimulus dollars.?_ That, too, is untrue._ There are no such criteria, because the new law hasn?t been written yet._ No one knows what criteria Congress will impose when it finishes writing the new law next month, or what restrictions the Commonwealth will add for spending in Massachusetts.

2. Fifteen-year delay prevents immediate results.

The MTA?s 99-year lease to the developers includes a 10-year construction delay (2013 - 2022), pushing the grand opening to as late as 2026, when the first new, permanent jobs would be created._ Even though the developers must pay over $8.1 million for this delay privilege, they insisted upon keeping it during the 2006 lease negotiations, and again during the 2008 re-negotiations.

3. Privately owned tunnels don?t meet the public ownership requirement.

The project has no publicly owned infrastructure._ All project components ? especially tunnel walls, tunnel ceilings, tunnel roofs, decks, platforms, and public parks ? are 100% privately owned._ That private ownership of the tunnels is why the state disqualified Columbus Center?s $20 million M.O.R.E. grant application (?State denies subsidies for condo complex?, Boston Globe, 14 November 2007), and then reassigned the funds to other towns (?State pulls $10m slated for Columbus Center?, Boston Globe, 8 April 2008).

Economic Development Undersecretary Greg Bialecki says that Columbus Center?s tunnels, decks, and platforms might qualify for federal funding, but those are the very elements that disqualify it._ Because all components are 100% privately owned, the project has no publicly owned infrastructure.

The private ownership clauses appear in the 2006 original lease (on which the owners defaulted 3 years ago), and also in the 2008 amended lease (which the owners never signed).

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Mass Pike official hits $10G gift to Dianne Wilkerson[/size]
By Thomas Grillo
January 29, 2009

A Massachusetts Turnpike Authority official said reports of a Columbus Center developer?s cash donation to disgraced former state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson raise new questions about the stalled project.

?The commonwealth can?t afford any more ethical lapses,? said Mary Connaughton, a Turnpike board member. ?If the allegations are true, it casts a pall over Columbus Center and will influence our decision-making about the development going forward.?

Reports that Arthur Winn gave Wilkerson $10,000 to defray her delinquent tax and mortgage bills are just the latest issues facing the controversial mixed-use development.

At stake is the 1.3 million-square-foot neighborhood to be built on a seven-acre deck above the Massachusetts Turnpike straddling the Back Bay and South End.

Approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in 2003, the plan calls for condominiums, a hotel, parks and retail space. But the $800 million project has yet to be built, due to financing problems. Wilkerson has reportedly accepted cash gifts from a variety of individuals including Winn, but she has said the donations were allowed by the state Ethics Commission.

The panel, however, prohibits donations for ?personal financial assistance from anyone with an interest in legislative business,? according to its Web site.

In December, Wilkerson was arraigned on extortion charges. Investigators allege she took $23,500 in bribes. The 53-year-old Democrat pleaded not guilty.

Connaughton said Columbus Center has the potential to beautify the area near the Back Bay MBTA station. ?Theoretically, the project is a good one,? she said. ?But it must be done in accordance with sound public policy. Revelations like this don?t help.?

Winn, through a spokesman, declined to comment.

http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...t_to_Dianne_Wilkerson/srvc=home&position=also

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Money to spurn[/size]

By Globe columnist Adrian Walker ? January 30, 2009

I?ve spent several days trying to make sense of the sheer lunacy that seems to form the heart of Dianne Wilkerson?s defense.

In Sunday?s Globe, the indicted former senator trotted out a defense that baffled the city. She told the Globe?s Donovan Slack that over the years she has taken at least triple the $23,000 she has been charged with grabbing illegally.

This is all legal - she said - because the state ethics commission wrote a letter saying she could take whatever she wants as long as she didn't cast votes benefiting her donors.

Say what?

Ethics Commission members maintained that their advice to public officials is private, and would not comment.

I?m going to go out on a limb and say no one told her she could start accepting unmarked envelopes full of cash. I also suspect that their advice did not say she could take payments to grease the skids for liquor licenses and real estate developments, as the US attorney?s office alleges she did.

The juiciest issue in the story Sunday is the allegation that the developer of Columbus Center, Arthur Winn, generously wrote a check for $10,000 before she spent years trying to pry loose tens of millions of dollars in state subsidies for his project. She probably would have succeeded if not for the vigorous opposition of everyone else who represents the district, including Sal DiMasi, that well-known crusader for clean government.

It?s easy to poke fun, but the interview reflected a person who seems to have lost any significant contact with reality.

She said she could accept gifts up to $12,000 without having to report them to the IRS, which is true. But tax crime has nothing to do with bribery, even if a person who has been accused of both can be forgiven for confusing them.

Typically, lawmakers have a few facts of life explained to them when they take office. One is that you don?t take cash from people who will want something in return. Two, anyone who would give you cash wants something in return. Therefore, you don?t take little envelopes from anybody, and you certainly don?t want to be caught on camera sticking a wad of hundreds down your bra.

This is more sad than funny. Wilkerson was once a crusading civil rights lawyer. She took on Boston City Hall over segregated public housing and won, changing the face of Charlestown and South Boston. Now she is sitting in a diner explaining that she did take money, but she has some letter that says really, it?s all fine. Good luck with that defense.

People have asked what her fall means for black leadership in the city, a question that makes me crazy. The city and state have a leadership vacuum in general, but it isn?t about ?black leadership.? DiMasi just left under fire, and others in the State House may follow. This isn?t about ethnicity.

Wilkerson?s grasp of conflicts of interest is obviously shaky, but it does offer another window into how such a talented person has made such a mess of her career. The compass that guided her, or seemed to, at the beginning got dropped somewhere along the way. She won her first race by assailing incumbent Bill Owens, but he never took thousands from fat-cat developers and told the world he?d done nothing wrong.

Wilkerson seems to have saved her best parting shot for the clergy, whom she has accused of smearing her for years. Heaven knows they are not above criticism, and in fact I personally know some of her complaints about them to be true.

But just as Wilkerson doesn't quite grasp bribery, she also doesn't understand the idea of a moral high ground. But how would someone who thinks there?s nothing wrong with taking envelopes stuffed with cash ever understand that?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/30/money_to_spurn/

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Developer defends giving Wilkerson money[/size]

Boston Globe ? 5 February 2009 ? By Casey Ross

Arthur Winn (center), shown with Bill Wollinger and Susan Malatesta of Winn Properties, said his gift to Dianne Wilkerson was unrelated to a quest for state subsidies.

Boston developer Arthur Winn said he gave $10,000 to former state senator Dianne Wilkerson in 2004 to help a "close friend" with her tax debts, and not because he wanted her assistance getting public funds for his troubled Columbus Center project.

Winn spoke for the first time about his long relationship with Wilkerson because he said disclosure of the payment threatened to tarnish his reputation and overshadow the $810 million development he is trying to build over the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston. Winn's firm was subpoenaed by federal investigators who have brought unrelated bribery charges against Wilkerson.

The 69-year-old developer said he gave Wilkerson money because he did not want to see her career cut short by financial problems. And he vehemently denied the payment had anything to do with Wilkerson's efforts almost two years later to try to get public subsidies for Columbus Center.

"There was never a quid pro quo between Dianne and me," he said.

Speaking from the Faneuil Hall offices of WinnCompanies, Winn also said he would not be pushed out of the Columbus Center development by his partners, a California state pension fund and its real estate manager MacFarlane Partners, who own a controlling interest in the condo, hotel, and retail project. After The Boston Globe disclosed Winn's payment to Wilkerson last month, the California partners issued a statement saying the arrangement could constitute a "serious breach" of the partnership agreement. Such a violation could be grounds for removing Winn from the project.

"I'm not going to be booted out by this salacious attack on my reputation by the Globe," Winn said, his voice rising. "I've been at this . . . for 11 years. I've sunk a lot of time and effort in it, and I'd hate to see it die for many, many reasons, not the least of which is ego."

MacFarlane and the California fund declined to comment.

Wilkerson was arrested in October by federal agents and charged with taking thousands of dollars in bribes from a Roxbury nightclub operator who wanted a city liquor license and from an undercover FBI agent posing as a developer interested in building on state property.

Wilkerson could not be reached for comment, and her attorney did not return a call for comment.

Despite her history of financial problems, Winn said he remained a staunch fan of Wilkerson, who in 1997 was convicted of tax evasion and had two separate settlements with the Massachusetts attorney general for campaign finance violations. The two share an interest in affordable housing - his firm manages 4,000 apartments in her former district. Winn was an enthusiastic fund-raiser for her political campaigns, and Wilkerson emerged over the years as one of the most vocal supporters of Columbus Center.

"She's an accident looking for an intersection all the time," Winn said, adding that Wilkerson was also one of the most articulate politicians he'd ever met. "I thought she was terrific. I was always a big fan."

It was her tax conviction that led to the $10,000 payment from Winn. Faced with owing $100,000 in back taxes, Wilkerson told the Globe, she sought and obtained approval from the State Ethics Commission in 1997 to solicit donations to help with her personal finances. A fund was set up at the Boston law firm Foley Hoag to collect the donations.

"When I heard this was available," Winn recalled, "I said, 'Boy, whatever the powers that be, who knows what happened to get it set up that way.' But I sent my check to a very prestigious attorney, made out to Dianne." He said he did not recall when he learned of the fund's creation.

Even in hindsight, Winn said he never thought the gift would pose ethical or legal problems, and his own lawyers who reviewed the donation told him it was legal.

"I don't spend time studying the rules," he said. "I ask my attorneys, 'Can I give this gift? I'd love to.' And they say, 'Yes, it's been totally vetted at the ethics commissions.' The lawyers all looked at it and said I could do it."

Winn was one of several business executives who donated to the fund, but his payment appears to violate a key restriction the ethics commission placed on Wilkerson's fund raising: That she not take money from anyone with business before the Legislature. If someone later did have business before the Legislature, she was required to disclose it to the commission.

"The fact that she didn't do that is terrible, because it could get me into trouble," Winn said. "That would be the one thing that would make me angry about Dianne: She didn't do the right thing by the people who gave her the gift, because she didn't report it."

Winn's payment was made in January 2004. Then, 22 months later, in November 2005, Wilkerson successfully lobbied the state Senate to support a $4.3 million appropriation for Columbus Center, which needed help paying for a deck over the turnpike. The Legislature did not approve the funding.

Winn said there was never a "stated or unstated" understanding with Wilkerson surrounding his $10,000 payment, and that at the time he made it, he had no inkling Columbus Center would need help from the state.

"I don't follow those things," added Winn, who said he left issues involving public subsidies for the project to subordinates at his company. "And if I needed (Wilkerson's) vote, I wouldn't ask for it anyway."

Nonetheless, Winn said he and Wilkerson spoke frequently about Columbus Center, usually with the senator calling to ask how she could be helpful. Winn said he knew that whenever he would broach the topic of state financial help, Wilkerson would insist that, in turn, his project include jobs for her constituents.

"Dianne would give and get," Winn said. "Once she would get some money" for a development project, "she would associate it with a set-aside for minority employees, which is always what I expected."

Winn would not discuss the federal investigation into Wilkerson or his contact with authorities. Shortly after her arrest, his firm was among those rreceiving subpoenas asking for communications with Wilkerson and other individuals involved in her political dealings.

He said her arrest - and accompanying FBI surveillance images of her accepting wads of cash - was a "disgrace."

"It was a terrible, terrible day," he said. "I'm just very sad for her. I'm sad for many things. I'm sad she was the sole supporter of her family. I'm sad she never had any money. I'm sad she didn't have the support that many of the people on the hill have. It's a tragedy."

 

[Ned Flaherty]

Re: Columbus Center

[size=+2]Senator?s gift to ethics reform[/size]

Boston Globe ? 15 February 2009

Former state senator Dianne Wilkerson has unintentionally exposed a vast, gaping, screaming hole in the state?s ethics laws. In an interview with the Globe in January, she acknowledged taking over $70,000 in private donations ? ostensibly from personal friends ? to pay down her personal debts. And the newspaper reported last Sunday that those friends included a number of businesspeople with interests before state government.

What?s striking, though, is that her donors, at least, may well be in the clear. The Legislature needs to toughen the law and crack down on gifts that look ? at best ? like off-the books campaign contributions of up to $10,000.

In 1997 and again in 2003, Wilkerson sought and received the Ethics Commission?s blessing to accept large gifts from friends. Its informal advisory letters presume that her donors would have no interest in legislative matters. But that hardly turned out to be so. According to last Sunday?s Globe, one donor was public works contractor Jay Cashman, who has done extensive work on state projects; another was construction executive Shelley Hoon, who in 2001 won a contract to renovate housing in Wilkerson?s district. The Globe reported last month that another donor was developer Arthur Winn, who later won the senator?s support for public financing for a megaproject in her district.

State law does prohibit state employees from taking ? and interested parties from offering ? any gift or gratuity that is worth more than $50 in exchange for an official act. But a 2000 Supreme Judicial Court ruling neutered the law. The court ruled that the law demanded ?proof of linkage? of a specific gift to a specific act by a public official. Such links are almost impossible to nail down. Was Wilkerson?s 2005 vote to give $4.3 million in state money to Winn?s Columbus Center project a quid pro quo for his donation the previous year?

Indeed, any gift that is blatant enough to trigger the gratuity law, as currently interpreted, would seem to violate bribery statutes as well.

But even if a gift to Wilkerson didn?t violate the gratuity law, her conduct ? though not her donors? ? may well have been illegal in other ways. Officials are forbidden to take any gifts offered to them because of their government positions. The former senator has argued that her donations came from friends, and a spokeswoman for Winn, for instance, said he and Wilkerson have known each other for more than 20 years. The crucial question, though, is whether Wilkerson?s donors made gifts to other friends who weren?t in public office, or whether the Wilkerson donations were anomalous. An aggressive Ethics Commission with strong subpoena powers might be able to answer that question.

By law, state officials must also publicly disclose any facts that might suggest that they are subject to improper influence. And in its letters to Wilkerson, the Ethics Commission specifically told her to disclose any gift if the giver later ?acquires an interest in legislative business.? She has not filed such disclosures.

But would writing a letter really have cured the damage to the public interest? Under state law, a developer who wanted to curry favor with Wilkerson via a campaign contribution could give no more than the state?s individual limit of $500. So why should anyone be allowed to offer a much larger amount of money for a public official?s personal benefit ? even if the gift would be disclosed?

Governor Patrick?s ethics package would strengthen the law by banning gifts made because of a public official?s government position; this prohibition would extend to recipients and givers alike. Under his proposal, a gift to a legislator from an interested party could violate the law even without a specific tie to an official act. Similarly, state Representative Martin Walsh has proposed to ban any gift to public officials by nonrelatives with business before the state.

Lawmakers should have no objection to these improvements. The system works best when politicians cannot solicit or take money from powerful interests ? and when those interests cannot offer or give it.