The St Regis Residences (former Whiskey Priest site) | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
- Thread starter datadyne007
- Start date
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
I agree, the permit ought to have shown up in the title search at the transfer. But I’ve never bought a waterfront property so I don’t know how standard it would be for a title company to look for something like this. Also, I don’t know if Cronin is claiming to be unaware of it. But it seems his various filings have not mentioned it. And buried in the mess of exhibits, it seems that during the public process, there was mention of some previous approval for a walkway, and in the CLF’s public comments back in the autumn, they were then stating they hadn’t yet found that special permit. So it’s feeling like the existence of the permit was known, but the permit itself wasn’t entered into the public or permit process arena. Until CLF filed this suit. So I’d add to your comment, or maybe alter it, by saying that if Cronin and his lawyers were aware of the special permit, but tried to just tiptoe past the implications of it, that will probably turn out to have been a dreadful decision. How much of that would be the lawyers’ fault and how much the client’s (Cronin’s) fault, I dunno, I wasn’t in the room.
This is an important point, and gets to the question tysmith posted of “why is this the project they choose to try to block?” And others have taken a similar approach. The CLF is suing the state, not the developer. As stellarfun notes, the CLF is saying the state was sloppy and didn’t follow its own rules. If they are right, a judge will tend to come down hard on the state, judges across the political spectrum really hate it when states don’t follow their own rules. Having noted, that, yes, clearly CLF is trying to stop this development in its current form, but their current defendant is the state, and as such the implications are much broader than this one site.
I agree, the permit ought to have shown up in the title search at the transfer. But I’ve never bought a waterfront property so I don’t know how standard it would be for a title company to look for something like this. Also, I don’t know if Cronin is claiming to be unaware of it. But it seems his various filings have not mentioned it. And buried in the mess of exhibits, it seems that during the public process, there was mention of some previous approval for a walkway, and in the CLF’s public comments back in the autumn, they were then stating they hadn’t yet found that special permit. So it’s feeling like the existence of the permit was known, but the permit itself wasn’t entered into the public or permit process arena. Until CLF filed this suit. So I’d add to your comment, or maybe alter it, by saying that if Cronin and his lawyers were aware of the special permit, but tried to just tiptoe past the implications of it, that will probably turn out to have been a dreadful decision. How much of that would be the lawyers’ fault and how much the client’s (Cronin’s) fault, I dunno, I wasn’t in the room.
This is an important point, and gets to the question tysmith posted of “why is this the project they choose to try to block?” And others have taken a similar approach. The CLF is suing the state, not the developer. As stellarfun notes, the CLF is saying the state was sloppy and didn’t follow its own rules. If they are right, a judge will tend to come down hard on the state, judges across the political spectrum really hate it when states don’t follow their own rules. Having noted, that, yes, clearly CLF is trying to stop this development in its current form, but their current defendant is the state, and as such the implications are much broader than this one site.
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
West, I'll just add one thing to your commentary. I have not read through the various CLF comments to the state, but if, as you indicate, the CLF put the state on notice as to the existence of a prior Chapter 91 permit, and the state neglected to secure and read a copy of same, that's the state's fault. It may be that the CLF had a copy of the permit in hand, and held off providing it (they were under no duty to do so). Thus, CLF set a trap, and the state walked into it.
West, I'll just add one thing to your commentary. I have not read through the various CLF comments to the state, but if, as you indicate, the CLF put the state on notice as to the existence of a prior Chapter 91 permit, and the state neglected to secure and read a copy of same, that's the state's fault. It may be that the CLF had a copy of the permit in hand, and held off providing it (they were under no duty to do so). Thus, CLF set a trap, and the state walked into it.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
If the CLF suit reminds both owners and the commonwealth of the obligations of Ch 91, it seems like a good thing.
The owners of even dumpy dives will need to brush up now, and get their permits and get in compliance, if only as a deposit against the day that they sell out to bigger developers.
Yes the new building is great and it is hard to see it delayed, but its greatness is diminished if we were entitled to a 12' walk all along and never got it. It'll be hard to be grateful for a 10' upon completion if the case turns out to be we should have had access all along.
If the CLF suit reminds both owners and the commonwealth of the obligations of Ch 91, it seems like a good thing.
The owners of even dumpy dives will need to brush up now, and get their permits and get in compliance, if only as a deposit against the day that they sell out to bigger developers.
Yes the new building is great and it is hard to see it delayed, but its greatness is diminished if we were entitled to a 12' walk all along and never got it. It'll be hard to be grateful for a 10' upon completion if the case turns out to be we should have had access all along.
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
I went back and found it. From page 5 of exhibit D, there’s a paragraph that reads:
Exhibit D was a July 2016 letter from CLF to Matt Beaton, Secretary of EOEEA (now one of the defendants in their suit). So it’s not that CLF was putting the state on notice to this old license, they were referencing its alleged existence. I would be very surprised if CLF would put something like that in a letter if they had actually been sitting on the old license at that time.
But they obviously got it at some point, and they’ve deployed it now. Note that in the July 2016 letter they speculate that it was probably expired and thus moot. Now that they've found it, and it seems open-ended, they're using it.
Anyhow, I'm not claiming I can refute your idea that they set a trap and the state walked into it. But....it seems more to me like numerous parties in the public process were making reference to that old license, and CLF was scrambling around trying to find it, and then did. The letter from CLF only makes oblique reference to "repeated discussion", I didn't see anything else to clarify who was doing that discussing. But if it was Cronin's lawyers and / or the state, then they were dropping clues in the CLF's lap that have now come back full circle.
I went back and found it. From page 5 of exhibit D, there’s a paragraph that reads:
Exhibit D was a July 2016 letter from CLF to Matt Beaton, Secretary of EOEEA (now one of the defendants in their suit). So it’s not that CLF was putting the state on notice to this old license, they were referencing its alleged existence. I would be very surprised if CLF would put something like that in a letter if they had actually been sitting on the old license at that time.
But they obviously got it at some point, and they’ve deployed it now. Note that in the July 2016 letter they speculate that it was probably expired and thus moot. Now that they've found it, and it seems open-ended, they're using it.
Anyhow, I'm not claiming I can refute your idea that they set a trap and the state walked into it. But....it seems more to me like numerous parties in the public process were making reference to that old license, and CLF was scrambling around trying to find it, and then did. The letter from CLF only makes oblique reference to "repeated discussion", I didn't see anything else to clarify who was doing that discussing. But if it was Cronin's lawyers and / or the state, then they were dropping clues in the CLF's lap that have now come back full circle.
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
One other interesting tidbit from the July 2016 CLF letter jumped out at me:
Seems like even CLF likes the design, aesthetically.... or at least had the sense to make nice before inserting the knife.
One other interesting tidbit from the July 2016 CLF letter jumped out at me:
Seems like even CLF likes the design, aesthetically.... or at least had the sense to make nice before inserting the knife.
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
West, as I read Exhibit A, the permit was for a term of 30 years, starting in 1997? Its not as if it was some dusty, yellowing document from the 19th Century.
Reading the language you cite above, I would agree that CLF did not have a copy when it submitted comments last July. However, the permit did come into their possession later, but a very quick scan of their subsequent comments and their request for a reconsideration of the state's approval several weeks ago makes no obvious reference to it. (I concluded the latter from reading the state's rejection of CLF's request, with its refrains of 'no new facts'.)
West, as I read Exhibit A, the permit was for a term of 30 years, starting in 1997? Its not as if it was some dusty, yellowing document from the 19th Century.
Reading the language you cite above, I would agree that CLF did not have a copy when it submitted comments last July. However, the permit did come into their possession later, but a very quick scan of their subsequent comments and their request for a reconsideration of the state's approval several weeks ago makes no obvious reference to it. (I concluded the latter from reading the state's rejection of CLF's request, with its refrains of 'no new facts'.)
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
The greatness was diminished when 1/1800th of the City shit itself over a 266' glass box. ....i'm being generous. if ~300 people out of 576,000 actually give a rats ass about 2' of walking right-of-way forfeited on what not too long ago was a briny desolate wasteland, i'd be very surprised.
The greatness was diminished when 1/1800th of the City shit itself over a 266' glass box. ....i'm being generous. if ~300 people out of 576,000 actually give a rats ass about 2' of walking right-of-way forfeited on what not too long ago was a briny desolate wasteland, i'd be very surprised.
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
Stellarfun, I agree, it seems odd that something of that vintage would have taken so long to surface, that's been nagging at me all day.
Do these special Chapter 91 licenses get filed with a property's deed at the County registry? It'd have been easy to find it if so. But there's these references to it being discussed without being in evidence, so it can't have just been sitting at the court house; CLF probably has a paralegal down there every other day pulling docs for one reason or another.
I've never done a waterfront property transaction in MA or any other state for that matter, so I have to admit to being clueless as to how a 1997 vintage doc of such significance to a public process could have not been put into play. Seems weird, but maybe it's not?
Stellarfun, I agree, it seems odd that something of that vintage would have taken so long to surface, that's been nagging at me all day.
Do these special Chapter 91 licenses get filed with a property's deed at the County registry? It'd have been easy to find it if so. But there's these references to it being discussed without being in evidence, so it can't have just been sitting at the court house; CLF probably has a paralegal down there every other day pulling docs for one reason or another.
I've never done a waterfront property transaction in MA or any other state for that matter, so I have to admit to being clueless as to how a 1997 vintage doc of such significance to a public process could have not been put into play. Seems weird, but maybe it's not?
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,553
- Reaction score
- 3,163
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
My experience with both the Suffolk and Middlesex Registry of Deeds is that lots of materials get misfiled, mis-tagged to the wrong property, etc. With every real estate transaction I have had in the Boston area, I have had issues with the documents on file, or not, at the Registry of Deeds. This is especially true of more specialized items like easements. I assume Chapter 91 licenses are also somewhat unusual (hence lost a lot).
My experience with both the Suffolk and Middlesex Registry of Deeds is that lots of materials get misfiled, mis-tagged to the wrong property, etc. With every real estate transaction I have had in the Boston area, I have had issues with the documents on file, or not, at the Registry of Deeds. This is especially true of more specialized items like easements. I assume Chapter 91 licenses are also somewhat unusual (hence lost a lot).
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
on page 22 of the BRA's June 2016 South Boston Waterfront District Municipal Harbor Plan Renewal and Amendment *:
Huh? That 6970 license document did not at all "envision" a Harborwalk around the perimeter of the to-be-built restaurants, it made such a walk a requirement to be built within three years. And I don't see anything to suggest the Licensees did not control the area designated for the Harborwalk. Why would the state have attached a condition to a license that obliged an owner to build something they couldn't build?
This looks like the BRA just sort of glossed over something, or outright fudged, or threw in some artless spin, or ..... anyhow, they seem to have wandered out onto thin ice.
*This is the Waterfront plan amendment that the state subsequently approved, and which is the specific focus of CLF's lawsuit; they're asserting the state either a) ought not to have approved it on the merits, and/or b) did not follow its own procedures of approval and so ought not to have even gotten to the decision point on the merits. (That's a radical oversimplification of the lawsuit, but gets to the gist, I think.)
on page 22 of the BRA's June 2016 South Boston Waterfront District Municipal Harbor Plan Renewal and Amendment *:
Huh? That 6970 license document did not at all "envision" a Harborwalk around the perimeter of the to-be-built restaurants, it made such a walk a requirement to be built within three years. And I don't see anything to suggest the Licensees did not control the area designated for the Harborwalk. Why would the state have attached a condition to a license that obliged an owner to build something they couldn't build?
This looks like the BRA just sort of glossed over something, or outright fudged, or threw in some artless spin, or ..... anyhow, they seem to have wandered out onto thin ice.
*This is the Waterfront plan amendment that the state subsequently approved, and which is the specific focus of CLF's lawsuit; they're asserting the state either a) ought not to have approved it on the merits, and/or b) did not follow its own procedures of approval and so ought not to have even gotten to the decision point on the merits. (That's a radical oversimplification of the lawsuit, but gets to the gist, I think.)
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
West,
Not a Massachusetts lawyer. But the Chapter 91 permit created a public easement on the property for as long as there was a non-maritime use. Easements are not vaporware.
Hard for me to believe that the previous owner (who had secured the permit but a few years earlier) did not tell Cronin of the existence of such, and even if he did fail to tell, that Cronin's lawyer, doing due diligence, did not discover it.
Further, once the likelihood of an existing permit was revealed by CLF in July 2016, good lawyering on the part of the city, Cronin, and the state should have tracked it down. For if there was no permit, then the conversion of the property to commercial, non-maritime use by the previous owner was illegal, -- which undercuts the property title, or at least its value, as well.
A lot of egg on a lot of faces.
West,
Not a Massachusetts lawyer. But the Chapter 91 permit created a public easement on the property for as long as there was a non-maritime use. Easements are not vaporware.
Hard for me to believe that the previous owner (who had secured the permit but a few years earlier) did not tell Cronin of the existence of such, and even if he did fail to tell, that Cronin's lawyer, doing due diligence, did not discover it.
Further, once the likelihood of an existing permit was revealed by CLF in July 2016, good lawyering on the part of the city, Cronin, and the state should have tracked it down. For if there was no permit, then the conversion of the property to commercial, non-maritime use by the previous owner was illegal, -- which undercuts the property title, or at least its value, as well.
A lot of egg on a lot of faces.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
^^This will send a chill through corridors at Chiofaro Co/Pru. How do you spend millions designing a tower and getting it permitted, only to have the CLF come along and blow everything up at the 11th hour?
It takes a lot of resources to stop lawsuits like this.
^^This will send a chill through corridors at Chiofaro Co/Pru. How do you spend millions designing a tower and getting it permitted, only to have the CLF come along and blow everything up at the 11th hour?
It takes a lot of resources to stop lawsuits like this.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
I'm thinking the main reason for this ridiculous lawsuit for this development is for the CLF is ready to file a law suit against harbor garage. That is the main play it seems. They will need history along with consistency that the group is showing for creditabity.
The globe article said it all concerning Barr foundation and Amos goals and I believe they are using the CLF to start building a list of consistent lawsuits against Boston development waterfront then slam harbor garage development into the courts.
It seems the Barr foundation wants to create some history in trying to block certain developments instead of just attacking the harbor garage development.
This crazy stuff in my opinion.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/02/14/barr/CFx85YaZbIdYolE9Vv7aYK/story.html
Then the aquarium CEO resigns.
Both Cronin site and harbor garage sites are not open space so there should be incentive to get these built.
Why didn't the CLF try to protect the waterfront by not developing the open parking lots right on the water for another park which was legitimately open space not file lawsuits against preexisisting structures that are already blocking the site from the waterfront.
I mean whiskey priest and Atlantic beer gardens along with harbor garage are all preexisting structures that already block the waterfront.
Wouldnt make sense to stop the parking lots from being redeveloped instead of prexsisting garbage structures?
I'm thinking the main reason for this ridiculous lawsuit for this development is for the CLF is ready to file a law suit against harbor garage. That is the main play it seems. They will need history along with consistency that the group is showing for creditabity.
The globe article said it all concerning Barr foundation and Amos goals and I believe they are using the CLF to start building a list of consistent lawsuits against Boston development waterfront then slam harbor garage development into the courts.
It seems the Barr foundation wants to create some history in trying to block certain developments instead of just attacking the harbor garage development.
This crazy stuff in my opinion.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/02/14/barr/CFx85YaZbIdYolE9Vv7aYK/story.html
Then the aquarium CEO resigns.
Both Cronin site and harbor garage sites are not open space so there should be incentive to get these built.
Why didn't the CLF try to protect the waterfront by not developing the open parking lots right on the water for another park which was legitimately open space not file lawsuits against preexisisting structures that are already blocking the site from the waterfront.
I mean whiskey priest and Atlantic beer gardens along with harbor garage are all preexisting structures that already block the waterfront.
Wouldnt make sense to stop the parking lots from being redeveloped instead of prexsisting garbage structures?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 13,969
- Reaction score
- 21,970
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
Stellarfun, West, and Equilibria. Very much appreciate your research, analysis and discussion. Very enlightening. This is what I love about aB. Thanks and please keep up the good work.
Stellarfun, West, and Equilibria. Very much appreciate your research, analysis and discussion. Very enlightening. This is what I love about aB. Thanks and please keep up the good work.
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
^^^ Seriously, I just spent a good 45 minutes going over the past few pages of posts learning things I didn't even know I didn't know. This is a great community we have here. Sure as hell glad I didn't choose law school!
^^^ Seriously, I just spent a good 45 minutes going over the past few pages of posts learning things I didn't even know I didn't know. This is a great community we have here. Sure as hell glad I didn't choose law school!
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
If you look at CLF annual report you will see on page 15 Amos and Barbara hostetter as a donor 10,000 24,999 which might not be a big deal.
http://www.clf.org/about/
I'm sure the Barr Foundation is deeply involved somehow with this.
But after the globe article it seems that this mr. hostetter is ready to donate all his money stop boston's waterfront from being further developed at this point.
Just connect the dots on who is actually creating the problem for Cronin.
I'm sure every development in history has some type of zoning or legal issue it just depends on how much money you are willing to go to stop the developments and who has the deepest pockets along with the smartest lawyers.
It does come down to the point what is best for the public and the city.
I'm not big on the seaport developments or the area but rebuilding this dump would be blessing for the area
If you look at CLF annual report you will see on page 15 Amos and Barbara hostetter as a donor 10,000 24,999 which might not be a big deal.
http://www.clf.org/about/
I'm sure the Barr Foundation is deeply involved somehow with this.
But after the globe article it seems that this mr. hostetter is ready to donate all his money stop boston's waterfront from being further developed at this point.
Just connect the dots on who is actually creating the problem for Cronin.
I'm sure every development in history has some type of zoning or legal issue it just depends on how much money you are willing to go to stop the developments and who has the deepest pockets along with the smartest lawyers.
It does come down to the point what is best for the public and the city.
I'm not big on the seaport developments or the area but rebuilding this dump would be blessing for the area
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
Rifleman, your post underscores why the majority of voters in your self-initiated poll voted you off the board.
________________________
Beeline, I think there is often oversimplification, and an under-appreciation of the constraints placed on property owners, developers, and architects.
I'll illustrate this point by the example of a former industrial site auctioned and sold by the government. (Not Volpe, but probably with a similar industrial history as Volpe.) Much of the site is covered by a thick (up to five feet) concrete cap. There are those who might argue that the new owners out to build in the area covered by the cap, 'create density', etc.
However, the government has good reason to suspect that the soil under the cap is grossly contaminated. So the government, not being fools, attached a covenant to the title. The covenant basically provides that if the owner, or any subsequent owner, decides to excavate below the cap, the owner is responsible for the cleanup of the site. Without that covenant, the government would be responsible under CERCLA. The new owners have no intention of breaking through the cap, and instead will create a park.
Interestingly, the government retained title to the groundwater under the surface of this site. I'm not sure what that is about.
Rifleman, your post underscores why the majority of voters in your self-initiated poll voted you off the board.
________________________
Beeline, I think there is often oversimplification, and an under-appreciation of the constraints placed on property owners, developers, and architects.
I'll illustrate this point by the example of a former industrial site auctioned and sold by the government. (Not Volpe, but probably with a similar industrial history as Volpe.) Much of the site is covered by a thick (up to five feet) concrete cap. There are those who might argue that the new owners out to build in the area covered by the cap, 'create density', etc.
However, the government has good reason to suspect that the soil under the cap is grossly contaminated. So the government, not being fools, attached a covenant to the title. The covenant basically provides that if the owner, or any subsequent owner, decides to excavate below the cap, the owner is responsible for the cleanup of the site. Without that covenant, the government would be responsible under CERCLA. The new owners have no intention of breaking through the cap, and instead will create a park.
Interestingly, the government retained title to the groundwater under the surface of this site. I'm not sure what that is about.