Does anybody here have a sense (based on knowledge of the legal world) when the current lawsuits will be ruled upon in court (or settled outside of court as part of a shakedown).
It strikes me that IF the lawsuits fail, then the hurdles to get approval will be virtually non-existent (even with resistance from the usual suspects).
Again with the caveat that I am not a Massachusetts lawyer, ---there were two lawsuits filed against the developer and the Commonwealth with respect to development of the Harbor Garage. One was filed by the HT residents and the second by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF). A Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled on these two lawsuits in October 2019.
1. The HT residents claimed that property conveyances of 50 years ago gave them a right to parking spaces in the garage in perpetuity. The owner of the garage, Rams Head Development Corp, (RHDC) argued that the residents' 'right' to these parking paces expires in February 2022. The judge ruled in favor of RHDC.
N. B. (a) The court's decision recites the history of the HT development. It appears that the BRA always intended that a garage be part of the development of this city-owned land, and thus RHDC is probably bound by that intent in its development.
(b) Chiofaro has never owned the Harbor Garage. The court's decision states that RHDC, i.e., Prudential, has owned the garage since 2007.
(c) The Aquarium was not a party in these lawsuits, nor was the city.
2.) The judge dismissed other claims by the HT residents and CLF, other than a claim by CLF that the Commonwealth failed to follow procedures in approving the Boston Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan. There was sufficient merit to CLF's claim to allow such claim to be adjudicated in a trial. The CLF's claim does not directly challenge the substance of the Boston Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan, only that the state failed to follow procedures when approving it. If at trial, the state is found to not have followed procedures, this could affect the approval if, for example, the review scope was too narrow. I have found no further information of whether this CLF claim was settled, or is still being litigated.
______________________________________
The crux of the Aquarium's letter is that BPDA has failed to develop and publish timely design guidelines with respect to advancing beneficial public use of the Downtown Waterfront. BPDA committed to preparing the guidelines in the course of securing approval of the Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan. However, now two years after approval of the Municipal Harbor Plan, BPDA is only beginning the process of writing the guidelines, and this will take months to complete
In the absence of such guidelines, the Pinnacle PNF consequently is largely a void with respect to descriptions of how the development of the HT garage will advance beneficial public use. The Aquarium notes that BPDA may have such guidelines in six months or more, but that is far too late for any meaningful comment on this critical area of the PNF. Sidebar comment: The Aquarium is being pilloried for complaining about a BPDA failure.