Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
What exactly is the end-game here according to the CLF? I commented this in the Globe article and I'll say it here as well, this seems to be about power as maybe Rifleman alluded to. CLF, Barr Foundation, etc etc all want to be the ones calling the shots on all development or they'll bury you in lawsuits. The problem NIMBY's don't get is what happens if you DO block both this project and the Harbor Garage? Basically, you get what's there now. Harbor garage is definitely profitable, not sure about those two bars but I would image so given their location. So, blocking development doesn't get you a park or an unobstructed view. Its gets you a parking garage and two bars.
Lastly, say they win this lawsuit. Does the state then force the current owners to build a harborwalk? And if they can't and go bankrupt....then we stare at empty builders for the next 20 years?
First off, I’d encourage you to actually read the lawsuit, and think about what it says. Have you done that? If not, why not? You’re trying to read in something that isn’t there.
This particular suit is not about an end game, it’s about the stage of the game that we are at right now. CLF is asserting that the state violated its own rules in approving an amended waterfront plan, and did so partly because of a flawed representation of facts. The goal of this suit is to have a judge overturn the state’s approval of the amended waterfront plan. If a judge agrees – not a certainty – then Cronin is not prevented from redeveloping his site. He and his lawyers would indeed be sent back to their desks to regroup, but that in turn does not mean that they can never develop the site. You never know, they might even be able to end up with the same exact building, just with a much wider walkway and some boat docks or something. Would that be so terrible?
Consider how many buildings have been built along the South Boston waterfront in recent years. How many times has CLF sued to stop them? I don’t know for a fact that the number is zero, but they sure as hell aren’t stopping all development, haven’t even tried. And, if you take the time to read their filing – you are actually going to go read it, right? – you’ll see all sorts of hints of room for compromise. For one example of a hint: they mentioned that Cronin had generously offered to help fund the Martin Richards Park, to the tune of $1.5M I believe it was. However, they also note that said park has an incredibly long line of willing donors, given the many emotions it raises. So the offer, while generous, might be completely superfluous to that particular use, might not be needed at all. I read that, in conjunction with what else was in the suit, as “Hint, hint, redeploy that money to a better, wider, walkway!!” [note: this might be in one of the exhibits to the lawsuit, not the suit itself, I'm not remembering clearly where I saw this...]
On your specific point of whether the state would force the current owners to build the walkway. First and foremost, Cronin gets to respond and perhaps he has a legitimate reason why he could not build the walkway, maybe some other branch of government got in his way – if so, then we have a different conversation. However, as others have noted, I find it hard to believe the current owners weren’t notified by the sellers of this obligation, it was less than a decade old at the time of the sale. The walkway was apparently a condition for the restaurants ever being allowed to be there in the first place. It seems the current owner has not complied with basic permitting conditions, ever. Do you advocate that he should just be given a free pass forever? If so, why? His license to operate the restaurants expires in about ten years and he has never complied with it. If he can’t move forward with his redevelopment for whatever reason (say, the market turns and he missed it, can’t get financing), should it be renewed, if he continues not complying? If you believe this, why? Do you believe in law and order?
As I’ve stated before, I’d like to see the site redeveloped, and I like the renderings. But this owner gets to obey the law and live up to his contractual and regulatory obligations like everyone else, and the state sure as hell has to follow its own rules. The CLF has launched a salvo suggesting that the owner has not been complying with his regulatory obligations and also that the state has not been following its own rules. The CLF might be found by a judge to be wrong. But if a judge determines that they’re right, then the blame here lies with the property owner and the state (and maybe some blame spilling over to the BPDA).
And having said all that, I very much do understand that all this might mean the old restaurants sit there for a while longer. Too bad. Not the end of the world. What we might need here is a better, more competent property owner. That might be what we need over at the harbor garage, too.
Last point: you're going to go and actually read the lawsuit and the attachments thereto, yes? It is all about power, as you note, and knowledge is power.
, here are some key points: