Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport
Stellarfun and JANAM, responding to both your posts:
The special permit for Cronin's harborwalk showed it out over the water, not on his parcel, which I think answers your point stellarfun. Are you saying they just built the commercial enterprise out to the limit allowed for the harborwalk?
The easement point from the site owner to the north is something I'd seen, but I'm not sure how it factors in to CLF's suit. It might, I'm just not seeing it (I DO see your point on how constrained they are, I am not disputing that challenge).
I hadn't seen the Anthony's suit to prevent construction: what was the outcome of the suit? (Suing is one thing, winning is another.) Did Anthony really "own" the watersheet? And did he own the watersheet all the way across the back of Cronin's site to the MassPort site? Really? That sounds really strange. Does the current owner (s) of that site (s) own the watersheet now? (I don't have time right now to go look it up on the assessor's site) If so, how is Cronin going to get past the same hurdle without an easement over that? I don't recall seeing anything on Cronin's site plans about easements over the watersheet being granted by neighbors (I do recall the easement stellarfun noted). If this were all the case, I would think CLF would shift tactics to "the state is requiring something the owner can't provide, just like they couldn't provide before."
I'm a little perplexed on how the state back in 1997 could have issued a special permit requiring a harborwalk to be built out over public water that the state didn't control. If that's the answer to what Cronin didn't build it, that's the answer, but then why isn't Cronin shouting that to the media? (maybe he has and I missed it.)
ETA: Not disputing the assertions either of you have made, rather: seeking clarifications.
Stellarfun and JANAM, responding to both your posts:
The special permit for Cronin's harborwalk showed it out over the water, not on his parcel, which I think answers your point stellarfun. Are you saying they just built the commercial enterprise out to the limit allowed for the harborwalk?
The easement point from the site owner to the north is something I'd seen, but I'm not sure how it factors in to CLF's suit. It might, I'm just not seeing it (I DO see your point on how constrained they are, I am not disputing that challenge).
I hadn't seen the Anthony's suit to prevent construction: what was the outcome of the suit? (Suing is one thing, winning is another.) Did Anthony really "own" the watersheet? And did he own the watersheet all the way across the back of Cronin's site to the MassPort site? Really? That sounds really strange. Does the current owner (s) of that site (s) own the watersheet now? (I don't have time right now to go look it up on the assessor's site) If so, how is Cronin going to get past the same hurdle without an easement over that? I don't recall seeing anything on Cronin's site plans about easements over the watersheet being granted by neighbors (I do recall the easement stellarfun noted). If this were all the case, I would think CLF would shift tactics to "the state is requiring something the owner can't provide, just like they couldn't provide before."
I'm a little perplexed on how the state back in 1997 could have issued a special permit requiring a harborwalk to be built out over public water that the state didn't control. If that's the answer to what Cronin didn't build it, that's the answer, but then why isn't Cronin shouting that to the media? (maybe he has and I missed it.)
ETA: Not disputing the assertions either of you have made, rather: seeking clarifications.