stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,683
- Reaction score
- 1,489
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
As Seamus correctly points out, Chapter 91 applies to the entirety of the Commonwealth which fronts on tidal waters. That is why the determination regarding how to apply Chapter 91 to this site, to the HT garage site, to Fan Pier, etc., etc., is reserved to the Commonwealth, -- not to the BRA, the Mayor, or any official in the city of Boston.
The court decision in 1978 regarding Lewis Wharf resulted in a lot of people in Boston not owning the land on which they had built. That's because they built on land they actually didn't own, which was land under the tidal waters. This land is owned either by the Commonwealth, or a government sub-division, such as a city. (As it so happens, Harbor Towers and the HT garage were built on land that is determined to be tidal land, but I expect the ownership in this instance is convoluted because the city acquired ownership, probably in the mid 20th Century.)
To summarize, before the next point:
> land under the tidal waters is owned by State or local government
> land that was once under the tidal waters, but was filled, is still considered tidal land if it is close to tidal waters. (This is the case of all land between the Boston Harbor waters and the Greenway.)
> waters above the tidal land are owned by the government of the United States.
All of the Whiskey Priest site, the land portion, was once tidal waters, and following the 1978 court decision, the then owners of the Whiskey Priest site no longer owned the land on which buildings were built. (< This assumes that the site was not being used in commerce and/or trade.)
The changes to Chapter 91 that were made in the early 1980s were done to allow continued development of the harbor area, and to restore private ownership to public land that had been used to build waterfront properties for many decades. I am not a Massachusetts lawyer, but I suspect the initial 'ownership', and the subsequent restoration of that 'ownership' was free, in that the owners then, and the owners now, paid nothing for the tidal lands on which they built.
With respect to Whiskey Priest, Mr Cronin will not own the tidal land on which the proposed Harborwalk extension and any other piling supported open space will be built. The Commonwealth retains ownership of the tidal land into which pilings will be sunk, and will provide an easement allowing his use of the tidal land.
As the waters of the United States government would be displaced by any pilings, no pilings can be sunk without the assent of the Federal government (through a Corps of Engineers permit).
A suggestion: posters should not be proposing this change or that change to Chapter 91 without having a good grasp of what the law (and the associated regulations) requires. A solution which looks ideal in one case may be terrible in another. Which, in essence, is why the CLF is so animated with respect to what the city proposes.
Ownership disputes over waterfront land can become particularly nasty, and take on an aura of the very rich (who are the only ones who can afford such land these days) versus everyone else. For example,
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-khosla-beach-access-20160424-column.html
As Seamus correctly points out, Chapter 91 applies to the entirety of the Commonwealth which fronts on tidal waters. That is why the determination regarding how to apply Chapter 91 to this site, to the HT garage site, to Fan Pier, etc., etc., is reserved to the Commonwealth, -- not to the BRA, the Mayor, or any official in the city of Boston.
The court decision in 1978 regarding Lewis Wharf resulted in a lot of people in Boston not owning the land on which they had built. That's because they built on land they actually didn't own, which was land under the tidal waters. This land is owned either by the Commonwealth, or a government sub-division, such as a city. (As it so happens, Harbor Towers and the HT garage were built on land that is determined to be tidal land, but I expect the ownership in this instance is convoluted because the city acquired ownership, probably in the mid 20th Century.)
To summarize, before the next point:
> land under the tidal waters is owned by State or local government
> land that was once under the tidal waters, but was filled, is still considered tidal land if it is close to tidal waters. (This is the case of all land between the Boston Harbor waters and the Greenway.)
> waters above the tidal land are owned by the government of the United States.
All of the Whiskey Priest site, the land portion, was once tidal waters, and following the 1978 court decision, the then owners of the Whiskey Priest site no longer owned the land on which buildings were built. (< This assumes that the site was not being used in commerce and/or trade.)
The changes to Chapter 91 that were made in the early 1980s were done to allow continued development of the harbor area, and to restore private ownership to public land that had been used to build waterfront properties for many decades. I am not a Massachusetts lawyer, but I suspect the initial 'ownership', and the subsequent restoration of that 'ownership' was free, in that the owners then, and the owners now, paid nothing for the tidal lands on which they built.
With respect to Whiskey Priest, Mr Cronin will not own the tidal land on which the proposed Harborwalk extension and any other piling supported open space will be built. The Commonwealth retains ownership of the tidal land into which pilings will be sunk, and will provide an easement allowing his use of the tidal land.
As the waters of the United States government would be displaced by any pilings, no pilings can be sunk without the assent of the Federal government (through a Corps of Engineers permit).
A suggestion: posters should not be proposing this change or that change to Chapter 91 without having a good grasp of what the law (and the associated regulations) requires. A solution which looks ideal in one case may be terrible in another. Which, in essence, is why the CLF is so animated with respect to what the city proposes.
Ownership disputes over waterfront land can become particularly nasty, and take on an aura of the very rich (who are the only ones who can afford such land these days) versus everyone else. For example,
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0424-lopez-khosla-beach-access-20160424-column.html
Last edited:
