Regarding the BRA's undemocratic decision to approve Simon Properties Group/Copley Place Associates' planned reconstruction of Copley Place--in order to reduce the percentage of low-income residential units in the HUD Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG]-funded Copley Place project to less than 16%-- the following facts should be considered in 2012:
1. As the Boston Globe reported on Dec. 23, 1978, former Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority signed a long-term lease on Dec. 22, 1978 with Urban and Investment Development Co. [UIDC]--a subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance and Casualty Co.--in which it was agreed that the Copley Place project would just include "a 150 unit low and moderate income housing development" during the 99 year period in which the lease remained in effect.
2. On Jan. 31, 1980, former Massachusetts Gov. King and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority signed an "Amended and Restated Lease" with UIDC which states on pages 14 to 15 of its attached Schedule C: "Housing: The housing which Tenant will construct will include at least 100 units of mixed income housing. A minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low income."
3. On Apr. 30, 1980, Mayor Kevin White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston a "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant [UDAG] Application To The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development" which stated the following:
"The 1978 EIR did not include an economic impact analysis for Copley Place...In the final months of the year, UIDC, the Turnpike Authority and the Office of State Planning worked to incorporate many community recommendations into a final air rights lease which would permit development on the site. The 40-year Lease Agreement, renewable to 99 years, was signed in the end of December, and included these additional community benefits:...2. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing with at least 25% for low income households..."
4. On the "UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing" document which the City of Boston submitted to HUD in 1980 it states that 25% of the units to be constructed on the Copley Place project site are to be "low and moderate" and "Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority."
5. In their Aug. 11, 1980 "Response By The City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning The Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant," City of Boston attorneys stated:
"From the CRC review process has come significant design change and affirmative action commitments. These include the following, many of which have been incorporated into the final air-rights lease between UIDC and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority...3. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing, with at least 25% for low-income households.
"With regard to the housing to be constructed as part of Copley Place, there is little question that it will further fair housing goals...For the record it should be noted that there will be at least 100 units with 25% designated for low-income households. This provision was incorporated into the Air Rights Lease through the efforts of the Citizen's Review Committee. In conformance with Federal guidelines, the developer will submit an Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan. The Mayor's Office of Fair Housing will provide technical assistance to the developer in designing and implementing the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan...
"...The complainant fails to acknowledge the significant benefits to low-and moderate-income persons and minorities which were negotiated through the CRC process as well as those incoporated by the City into the UDAG application. These are mentioned in at least three separate locations in the application.
"In addition to the permanent and construction jobs agreement cited in Part V, the Copley Place project has provisions for a minimum of 100 units with 25% reserved for low income households..."
6. The Aug. 31, 1982 sub-lease between UIDC and UIDC of Massachusetts states the following in Section 6:12 on page 17: "Regulations: Affirmative Action. Urban Investment and Development Co. supports the Affirmative Action and Resident Preferences set forth in Attachment C of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant Application for Copley Place..."
7. Section 11.6 of the January 31, 1980 "Amended and Restated Lease" with UIDC of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority indicates on page 39 that any reconstruction of the Copley Place project is "subject" to "the use restrictions of Section 6:12" regarding affirmative action in the allocation of both Copley Place project jobs and Copley Place project residential housing units.
8. In his Nov. 15, 2011 memorandum to William Tuttle, Deputy Director and Robin Blatt-Eisengat of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Office of Real Estate and Asset Development, Andrew Royce of Sherin and Lodgen LLP notes that "after the first 15 years, Tenant may" only "construct additional improvements subject to...non-discrimination and affirmative action requirements;" and that "Schedule C, entitled HOUSING, states, in part `The housing which Tenant will construct will include at least 100 units of mixed income housing' and `A minimum of 25% of the units must be available for rent at all times to persons and families of low-income.'
Given these facts, Simon Properties/Copley Place Associates would appear to be violating the affirmative action use restrictions of the 99-year lease between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the Copley Place project developer, as well as the community benefit terms and community benefit intentions of the City of Boston's Urban Development Action Grant application, if its reconstruction of Copley Place decreases the percentage of Copley Place project low-income residential units below 16% between 2012 and 2077.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 8
As noted in the Meeting Summary of the Copley Place Expansion Project CAC for November 9, 2011, Robin Blatt, MassDOT, claimed that the "the original lease as part of the original” Copley Place “project stipulated that 25% of any units built at the time, for that project only, would have to be affordable,” “this was extinguished when the Harcourt Street residences were constructed,” and “moreover, this part of the lease had a sunset clause that expires after 15 years."
But in the April 30, 1980 "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application" that Boston Mayor Kevin White submitted to HUD there's no public mention of the lease allegedly containing a "sunset clause that expires after 15 years" or the 25% low-income units requirement for the whole Copley Place project included in the 99 year lease being "extinguished when the Harcourt Residences" are constructed.
Yet the "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application To The U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development" that Mayor Kevin H. White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston on April 30, 1980 does state the following:
In addition, page 118 of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” is a copy of a form submitted by the City of Boston, titled “UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing” which also indicated that 25% of the new units to be constructed are to be “low and moderate;” and states that “Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority…”
And in the “Assurances” section of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” on page 145, the City of Boston also “certifies that it has not knowingly and willfully made or used a document containing any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement.”
Since one of the "additional community benefits" included as part of the 99 year lease as part of the "many community recommendations" incorporated "into a final air rights lease" is the "at least 25% for low income households" benefit, a reconstruction of the same project that increases the total number of on-site residential units in the Copley Place project in a way that reduces the percentage of low-income household units to below 25% contradicts what the City of Boston stated in its April 30, 1980 UDAG application (although it looks like the proponents of Simon Properties Group and Neiman Marcus’ “Jim Crow” reconstruction/skyscraper are apparently also constructing a legalistic rationalization for scrapping the required 25% low-income units requirement/community benefit on the Copley Place project public land in 2012).
But in the April 30, 1980 "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application" that Boston Mayor Kevin White submitted to HUD there's no public mention of the lease allegedly containing a "sunset clause that expires after 15 years" or the 25% low-income units requirement for the whole Copley Place project included in the 99 year lease being "extinguished when the Harcourt Residences" are constructed.
Yet the "Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application To The U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development" that Mayor Kevin H. White submitted on behalf of the City of Boston on April 30, 1980 does state the following:
“The 1978 EIR did not include an economic impact analysis for Copley Place …In the final months of the year, UIDC [Urban Investment & Development Co.], the Turnpike Authority and the Office of State Planning worked to incorporate many community recommendations into a final air rights lease which would permit development on the site. The 40-year Lease Agreement, renewable to 99 years, was signed in the end of December, and included these additional community benefits:
“…2. Provision for a minimum of 100 units of housing with at least 25% for low income households…
“…UIDC entered into a 99-year agreement with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority in December, 1978, amended January 1980…”
In addition, page 118 of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” is a copy of a form submitted by the City of Boston, titled “UDAG Form 8: Provision of Housing” which also indicated that 25% of the new units to be constructed are to be “low and moderate;” and states that “Distribution of units determined by Lease Agreement between UIDC and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority…”
And in the “Assurances” section of the City of Boston’s 1980 “Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant Application,” on page 145, the City of Boston also “certifies that it has not knowingly and willfully made or used a document containing any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement.”
Since one of the "additional community benefits" included as part of the 99 year lease as part of the "many community recommendations" incorporated "into a final air rights lease" is the "at least 25% for low income households" benefit, a reconstruction of the same project that increases the total number of on-site residential units in the Copley Place project in a way that reduces the percentage of low-income household units to below 25% contradicts what the City of Boston stated in its April 30, 1980 UDAG application (although it looks like the proponents of Simon Properties Group and Neiman Marcus’ “Jim Crow” reconstruction/skyscraper are apparently also constructing a legalistic rationalization for scrapping the required 25% low-income units requirement/community benefit on the Copley Place project public land in 2012).
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 7
Simon Properties Group [SPG]’s attorney, James H. Greene of the Rubin & Rudman corporate law firm, has claimed at recent Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA] and Boston Zoning Commission hearings that Simon Properties is no longer required to keep 25% of all residential units constructed on the Copley Place Project land affordable to low-income and minority tenants who wish to live in the Back Bay/South End neighborhood of Boston until 2077 (as mandated by the Section 16 housing affirmative action and residential affordability provisions of the 1978 and early 1980s master and amended master leases between the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the original developer, the UIDC subsidiary of Aetna Life).
Yet in its August 11, 1980 "Response by the City of Boston to an administrative complaint submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Group," the City of Boston attorneys, themselves, stated:
But, coincidentally. according to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance website data, the proposed Copley Place Reconstruction project's lead architect, Jack Hobbs of Hingham, Massachusetts, gave 5 campaign contributions--totalling $1,100--to Mayor Menino's campaign committee between May 16,2005 and November 4, 2010.
Yet in its August 11, 1980 "Response by the City of Boston to an administrative complaint submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Group," the City of Boston attorneys, themselves, stated:
"Again, the complainant fails to acknowledge the significant benefits to low-and moderate-income persons and minorities which were negotiated through the CRC process as well as those incorporated by the City into the UDAG application. These are mentioned in at least three separate locations in the application .
“In addition to the permanent and construction jobs agreements cited in Part V, the Copley Place project has provisions for a minimum of 100 units of housing with 25% reserved for low-income households, and provisions for 15,000 to 20,000SF of community retail space with 50% reserved for Community Development Corporations and Minority Business Enterprises at below market rents...."
But, coincidentally. according to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance website data, the proposed Copley Place Reconstruction project's lead architect, Jack Hobbs of Hingham, Massachusetts, gave 5 campaign contributions--totalling $1,100--to Mayor Menino's campaign committee between May 16,2005 and November 4, 2010.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Stop Simon Properties Group & Neiman Marcus' "Jim Crow" Skyscraper Reconstruction Project at Copley Place in Boston's Back Bay: Part 6
The Indianapolis, Indiana-based Simon Properties Group [SPG] should not be allowed to enclose the public open space at Stuart and Dartmouth Street in Boston’s Back Bay/South End neighborhood and add a massive 47-story “Neiman Marcus Tower” skyscraper of mostly luxury residential units to the Copley Place project (atop the shopping mall’s Neiman Marcus anchor store) for the following nine reasons:
1) As Judge Caffrey noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum in the Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce case, “ Copley Place is a…multi-use development of housing, 25 percent of which are to be subsidized.” Yet of the 318 units of additional residential housing units that SPG/Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to Copley Place , less than 16 percent are to be subsidized, in contradiction to Judge Caffrey’s August 17, 1981 legal memorandum.
2) As Judge Caffrey also noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum:
Regarding the contract between HUD and the City of Boston that provided the original developer of Copley Place with over $18 million in public UDAG federal funds, in its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston indicated that the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA]'s previous review of the proposed Copley Place project determined that HUD’s $18.8 million UDAG was to be used to develop “landscaped open space” at the Dartmouth and Stuart Streets site—not an enclosed “winter garden” that’s linked to a 47-story skyscraper residential addition to Copley Place and reconstruction of its anchor retail department store, Neiman Marcus. As the City of Boston noted in its August 11, 1980 response:
The terms of the 1981 UDAG contract between the City of Boston and HUD do not authorize any current or future private developer (such as SPG/Copley Place Associates) to construct an enclosed “winter garden” and a 47-story skyscraper residential addition on the “landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation” and 21,800 square foot “public plaza and mall entrance” at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets.
So without HUD approval of amendments to the 1981 UDAG contract, SPG/Copley Place Associates should not be allowed to now reconstruct Copley Place --especially given the opposition of most Back Bay and South End neighborhood residents. As section 570.463 of HUD UDAG regulations on “project amendment and revisions” notes, “applicants…must submit to the HUD Central Office, a request for approval of any significant amendment” to a UDAG-funded project and “a significant amendment involves new activities or alternations thereof which will change the scope, location, scale, or beneficiaries of such activities...”
3) In its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston also asserted that the “construction of Copley Place will further the objectives of the UDAG program by…creating opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities.”
Yet of the 318 units of addition residential housing that SPG//Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to the partially HUD UDAG program-funded Copley Place project, less than 16 percent of the constructed new residential units would create residential “opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities;” and the Indianapolis-based SPG/Copley Place Associates executives have indicated that if the City of Boston now requires their proposed Neiman Marcus skyscraper/Copley Place residential addition to contain 25 percent subsidized units that are affordable for low-and moderate income people and minorities—as mandated by the late 1970s and early 1980s Copley Place project development legal agreements—they would be unwilling to build any additional residential units on a construction site which previously received over $18 million in HUD UDAG program federal funds.
4) The 1,558 parking spaces that SPG/Copley Place Associates controls are often filled to capacity during the Boston Red Sox baseball season, during the workweek, and on weekends at the peak of the tourist and shopping seasons. So adding at least 300 more cars of the residents of the proposed 47-story skyscraper residential addition will likely force many more non-residents of the neighborhood to park on nearby streets, and, thereby, reduce the parking spaces available to South End and Back Bay neighborhood residents.
5) If the 47-story skyscraper is built, the wind force level on pedestrians on the street at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets is expected to increase by 20 percent; and the shadows cast over Copley Square during workweek lunch hours between October and March—when this public park is most crowded on weekdays during these months—are also expected to increase by 20 percent. In addition, the proposed 47-story skyscraper is expected to cast a shadow over the Commonwealth Mall park space at around 9 a.m. each day—at a time when the Commonwealth Mall is being used most by people in the Back Bay neighborhood who pass through Commonwealth Mall each day as they walk to work or to the Copley Square subway station.
6) At a recent public meeting in the Boston Public Library, little specific information or visual material indicating how the construction site area at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets and the surrounding neighborhood streets are going to be affected or inconvenienced during the 3 years it would take to complete the proposed 47-story skyscraper/enclosed “winter garden”/over-development project was provided to the public. No mention was made, for example, of the amount of fugitive dust that will be created so close to the Back Bay Station (which is used by large numbers of commuters) during the demolition part of the proposed construction project. Nor was there any discussion of whether current crane safety precautions in Boston to assure pedestrian, commuter driver and construction worker safety are sufficient to build a 47-story skyscraper (over a 1 to 3-year period) in a highly windy area of heavy foot and car traffic, and where the ground regularly shakes as trains pull in and out of Back Bay station (and which even experienced a recent earthquake tremor).
7) Regarding the crane safety issue, the City Council in New York City requires, for example, that in Manhattan “prior to a crane’s initial erection or dismantling, the general contractor must hold a safety coordination meeting;” and “a pre-jump safety meeting must take place no more than 24-hours prior to each instance of a tower or climber crane jump or climb.” In addition, “the general contractor must notify Department of Buildings at least 48-hours before any safety coordination meetings or pre-jump safety meetings are held, and these meetings must cover topics related to scope of work, roles and responsibilities, rigging equipment, sequence of operations, inspection of rigging equipment tools prior to work, review of all equipment, permit validity, qualifications and training of personnel, relevant weather warnings, compliance with the manufacturer’s manual.”
8) Regarding the promise of 1,700 temporary construction work jobs that SPG/Copley Place Associates’ proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition over-development project would provide, at the recent BPL public meeting no specific break-down on how long each of the 1,700 temporary construction job positions created actually would last or which of the expected temporary construction worker jobs will actually be filled with Boston and/or South End and Back Bay residents was provided. Does the “1,700 jobs” estimate, for example, include particular construction work jobs that will only last less than 3 months? Are the Boston and/or South End residents who get hired to work on the proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project only to be allowed to fill the temporary construction jobs that pay the lowest hourly rate and/or last less than 3 months?
9) Between the time that SPG/Copley Place Associates first proposed to build a 47-story “Neiman Marcus” Tower and enclosed “winter garden” (mainly to apparently provide more potential local residential customers for its anchor retail department store tenant) and April 2009, construction work on 29 skyscraper construction projects in the United States were halted because of the U.S. economic recession. And since the U.S. economy is expected to be in an even deeper economic recession in 2012 and 2013, there’s a possibility that SPG/Copley Place Associates would also eventually be forced to halt construction of its 47-story skyscraper and enclosed “winter garden” if its proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project is begun in 2012.
Given the Simon Properties Group’s current financial condition, it’s not totally impossible that it might be forced financially to halt construction of this proposed 47-story skyscraper construction project before completion, if a post-2012 economic recession intensifies. Regarding SPG’s current financial condition, Wayne Gorsek, for example, expressed the following opinion in his September 2 and September 5, 2011 column on the Seeking Alpha website:
For all these reasons, the SPG/Copley Place Associates’ “Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition” reconstruction project that would over-develop the Back Bay’s Copley Place (mainly for the benefit of private, special corporate interests) should not be allowed by the City of Boston and the State of Massachusetts to go forward; and the “landscaped open space” at “the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets,” which is now “designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square” and a “spatial extension of Copley Square” in “the public plaza,” should now be maintained in accordance with the terms of the HUD-City of Boston formal Urban Development Action Grant contract of 1981.
1) As Judge Caffrey noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum in the Munoz-Mendoza v. Pierce case, “ Copley Place is a…multi-use development of housing, 25 percent of which are to be subsidized.” Yet of the 318 units of additional residential housing units that SPG/Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to Copley Place , less than 16 percent are to be subsidized, in contradiction to Judge Caffrey’s August 17, 1981 legal memorandum.
2) As Judge Caffrey also noted in his August 17, 1981 memorandum:
“In April of 1980 the City of Boston submitted to HUD a UDAG [Urban Development Action Grant] application for Copley Place , and HUD announced preliminary approval of the funding on October 9, 1980…The City of Boston and HUD signed a formal UDAG contract in the early months of 1981.”
Regarding the contract between HUD and the City of Boston that provided the original developer of Copley Place with over $18 million in public UDAG federal funds, in its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted By Greater Boston Legal Services To HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston indicated that the Boston Redevelopment Authority [BRA]'s previous review of the proposed Copley Place project determined that HUD’s $18.8 million UDAG was to be used to develop “landscaped open space” at the Dartmouth and Stuart Streets site—not an enclosed “winter garden” that’s linked to a 47-story skyscraper residential addition to Copley Place and reconstruction of its anchor retail department store, Neiman Marcus. As the City of Boston noted in its August 11, 1980 response:
“…The development site will be landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation…These areas include…the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets…At the Dartmouth/Stuart entrance to the retail center the public mall and plaza entrance will be constructed over the Turnpike deck. This entrance is designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square and a gateway to Copley Place …
“At the Dartmouth/Stuart Street entrance to the proposed retail development, the Turnpike will be decked and a public plaza and mall entrance will be constructed. This entrance will provide a spatial extension of Copley Square and act as a major focal point. The public plaza and mall entrance will cover approximately 21,800 square feet…
“…The project would not reach a fair level of return without such a UDAG investment…
“The Boston Redevelopment Authority will be the recipient of the UDAG funds from the City. The BRA will administer the grant and loan portions of the UDAG…UDAG funds are in fact necessary to the construction of Copley Place …”
The terms of the 1981 UDAG contract between the City of Boston and HUD do not authorize any current or future private developer (such as SPG/Copley Place Associates) to construct an enclosed “winter garden” and a 47-story skyscraper residential addition on the “landscaped open space dedicated to public pedestrian circulation” and 21,800 square foot “public plaza and mall entrance” at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets.
So without HUD approval of amendments to the 1981 UDAG contract, SPG/Copley Place Associates should not be allowed to now reconstruct Copley Place --especially given the opposition of most Back Bay and South End neighborhood residents. As section 570.463 of HUD UDAG regulations on “project amendment and revisions” notes, “applicants…must submit to the HUD Central Office, a request for approval of any significant amendment” to a UDAG-funded project and “a significant amendment involves new activities or alternations thereof which will change the scope, location, scale, or beneficiaries of such activities...”
3) In its August 11, 1980 “Response by the City of Boston To An Administrative Complaint Submitted by Greater Boston Legal Services to HUD Concerning the Copley Place Urban Development Action Grant,” the attorneys for the City of Boston also asserted that the “construction of Copley Place will further the objectives of the UDAG program by…creating opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities.”
Yet of the 318 units of addition residential housing that SPG//Copley Place Associates now proposes to add to the partially HUD UDAG program-funded Copley Place project, less than 16 percent of the constructed new residential units would create residential “opportunities for low-and moderate-income people and minorities;” and the Indianapolis-based SPG/Copley Place Associates executives have indicated that if the City of Boston now requires their proposed Neiman Marcus skyscraper/Copley Place residential addition to contain 25 percent subsidized units that are affordable for low-and moderate income people and minorities—as mandated by the late 1970s and early 1980s Copley Place project development legal agreements—they would be unwilling to build any additional residential units on a construction site which previously received over $18 million in HUD UDAG program federal funds.
4) The 1,558 parking spaces that SPG/Copley Place Associates controls are often filled to capacity during the Boston Red Sox baseball season, during the workweek, and on weekends at the peak of the tourist and shopping seasons. So adding at least 300 more cars of the residents of the proposed 47-story skyscraper residential addition will likely force many more non-residents of the neighborhood to park on nearby streets, and, thereby, reduce the parking spaces available to South End and Back Bay neighborhood residents.
5) If the 47-story skyscraper is built, the wind force level on pedestrians on the street at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets is expected to increase by 20 percent; and the shadows cast over Copley Square during workweek lunch hours between October and March—when this public park is most crowded on weekdays during these months—are also expected to increase by 20 percent. In addition, the proposed 47-story skyscraper is expected to cast a shadow over the Commonwealth Mall park space at around 9 a.m. each day—at a time when the Commonwealth Mall is being used most by people in the Back Bay neighborhood who pass through Commonwealth Mall each day as they walk to work or to the Copley Square subway station.
6) At a recent public meeting in the Boston Public Library, little specific information or visual material indicating how the construction site area at Dartmouth and Stuart Streets and the surrounding neighborhood streets are going to be affected or inconvenienced during the 3 years it would take to complete the proposed 47-story skyscraper/enclosed “winter garden”/over-development project was provided to the public. No mention was made, for example, of the amount of fugitive dust that will be created so close to the Back Bay Station (which is used by large numbers of commuters) during the demolition part of the proposed construction project. Nor was there any discussion of whether current crane safety precautions in Boston to assure pedestrian, commuter driver and construction worker safety are sufficient to build a 47-story skyscraper (over a 1 to 3-year period) in a highly windy area of heavy foot and car traffic, and where the ground regularly shakes as trains pull in and out of Back Bay station (and which even experienced a recent earthquake tremor).
7) Regarding the crane safety issue, the City Council in New York City requires, for example, that in Manhattan “prior to a crane’s initial erection or dismantling, the general contractor must hold a safety coordination meeting;” and “a pre-jump safety meeting must take place no more than 24-hours prior to each instance of a tower or climber crane jump or climb.” In addition, “the general contractor must notify Department of Buildings at least 48-hours before any safety coordination meetings or pre-jump safety meetings are held, and these meetings must cover topics related to scope of work, roles and responsibilities, rigging equipment, sequence of operations, inspection of rigging equipment tools prior to work, review of all equipment, permit validity, qualifications and training of personnel, relevant weather warnings, compliance with the manufacturer’s manual.”
8) Regarding the promise of 1,700 temporary construction work jobs that SPG/Copley Place Associates’ proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition over-development project would provide, at the recent BPL public meeting no specific break-down on how long each of the 1,700 temporary construction job positions created actually would last or which of the expected temporary construction worker jobs will actually be filled with Boston and/or South End and Back Bay residents was provided. Does the “1,700 jobs” estimate, for example, include particular construction work jobs that will only last less than 3 months? Are the Boston and/or South End residents who get hired to work on the proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project only to be allowed to fill the temporary construction jobs that pay the lowest hourly rate and/or last less than 3 months?
9) Between the time that SPG/Copley Place Associates first proposed to build a 47-story “Neiman Marcus” Tower and enclosed “winter garden” (mainly to apparently provide more potential local residential customers for its anchor retail department store tenant) and April 2009, construction work on 29 skyscraper construction projects in the United States were halted because of the U.S. economic recession. And since the U.S. economy is expected to be in an even deeper economic recession in 2012 and 2013, there’s a possibility that SPG/Copley Place Associates would also eventually be forced to halt construction of its 47-story skyscraper and enclosed “winter garden” if its proposed Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition project is begun in 2012.
Given the Simon Properties Group’s current financial condition, it’s not totally impossible that it might be forced financially to halt construction of this proposed 47-story skyscraper construction project before completion, if a post-2012 economic recession intensifies. Regarding SPG’s current financial condition, Wayne Gorsek, for example, expressed the following opinion in his September 2 and September 5, 2011 column on the Seeking Alpha website:
“Simon Property Group, Inc (SPG) is a mall REIT that owns and manages retail mall properties…Fundamentally, the stock looks way overvalued….There is a high chance the USA will enter another recession and this will cause people to stop spending at high price retailers (Saks (SKS), Nordstrom (JWN), etc.) in the malls that Simon owns. This can reduce their revenues as part of their revenues are based on the sales of the retailers in the malls….Look at 2009, these high price retailer sales plummeted as did their stocks, 2011 2nd half and 2012 will look very similar to 2008 and 2009, in my humble opinion, based on massive fundamental facts regarding world debt, deficits and economies.
“Reviewing cash flow at Simon Property Group, Inc. (SPG) and using it to support an approximate $34 billion valuation does not add up. Cash flow ending in 2010 shows a negative cash flow of $3.1 billion. First half of 2011 shows negative cash flow negative of about $7 million.
“Massive debt and liabilities at SPG total $19.648 billion dollars. This creates a high degree of risk for a company relying on high priced retailers in mall locations to maintain profitability. Another risk would be higher interest rates and this could rapidly destroy their earnings.
“The risk of world and USA economies heading into a double dip recession is a high probability. If this occurs, look at the 2008 and 2009 performance of SPG during the prior recession, it dropped from over $100 per share to under $30 per share in less than one year! A potential loss of 70%! … A quick review indicates numerous insiders (executives and directors) sold over $60 million worth of stock from Dec 2009 to August 30, 2011. In fact there was not one insider purchase during this time frame as indicated by Yahoo finance reports. Massive insider selling by numerous officers and executives as in the case of Simon Property Group is a major red flag….”
For all these reasons, the SPG/Copley Place Associates’ “Copley Place Retail Expansion and Residential Addition” reconstruction project that would over-develop the Back Bay’s Copley Place (mainly for the benefit of private, special corporate interests) should not be allowed by the City of Boston and the State of Massachusetts to go forward; and the “landscaped open space” at “the plaza near the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Streets,” which is now “designed to provide a park-like extension of Copley Square” and a “spatial extension of Copley Square” in “the public plaza,” should now be maintained in accordance with the terms of the HUD-City of Boston formal Urban Development Action Grant contract of 1981.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Upton Sinclair On The Politics of U.S. Publishing Industry
In his 1937 message "To the Reader" that preceded the text of his 1937 book about Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company's hidden history, The Flivver King: A Story of Ford-America, U.S. left-wing writer Upton Sinclair wrote the following about the politics of the U.S. publising industry:
"Thirty-five years ago I dedicated my life to the cause of justice for the American workers. In the course of those years I have published fifty-nine books and plays. Some have been successes, some failures. When I made money, I have spent it to finance new books, or to circulate the old ones. Nineteen times, by actual count, I have been forced to deal with a new publisher, because my new book was considered too dangerous by the old publisher. On as many occasions I have had to publish the new book myself, because it was too dangerous for any publisher I could find.
"The last experinece was with a novel called No Pasaran! (They Shall Not Pass): A Story of the Battle of Madrid. This was an effort to help the new Spanish democracy, and I sold most of them below cost. The significant fact is that not one of the literary organs of this country, not one of the big newspapers of New York, so much as mentioned the book. Yet it was judged worth publication as a serial by a leading newspaper of Paris, and was advertised on billboards all over that city; in six months it has been published serially in a score of different languages, and has been published or is being prepared in book form in a score of countries. It has been published by the government in Spain, and is being made into a motion picture in Barcelona.
"The books of Upton Sinclair have been issued in more than seven hundred editions in foreign countries, including more than forty different languages, practically all those spoken by civilized peoples. The foreign sales have amounted to more than ten millions. But the job of getting these books to the people in my own country has been a hard one, because books are sold for high prices in America, and the people for whom I write books have little money. Now a new labor movement with enlightened leadership has been born; and this brings me great satisfaction, because I have been calling all my public life for mass unions of the workers. I am glad to have my books read by the men and women who are going to build the happy society in which our children will live, and I am content to get along without the honors and applause which a writer wins by catering to the leisure class booktrade."
Friday, January 6, 2012
Black Worker Jobless Rate Increases To 15.8 Percent Under Obama & GOP House of Representatives
The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Black workers in the United States increased from 15.5 to 15.8 percent between November and December 2011 under the Democratic Obama Administration and the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data; while the unemployment rate for Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased from 13 to 13.9 percent during the same period. The jobless rate for Black youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age also increased from 39.6 to 42.1 percent between November and December 2011; while the unemployment rate for Black male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 15.7 percent in December 2011.
The number of officially unemployed Black workers increased by 79,000 (from 2,783,000 to 2,862,000) between November and December 2011; while the number of jobless Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 91,000 (from 1,184,000 to 1,275,000) during the same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Asian-American workers in the United States also increased from 6.5 to 6.8 percent between November and December 2011; while the number of unemployed Asian-American workers increased by 34,000 (from 480,000 to 514,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
Between November and December 2011, the official jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 9.8 to 10.5 percent, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 102,000 (from 1,285,000 to 1,387,000) during the same period. The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all Latino or Hispanic workers was still 11 percent in December 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic women workers over 20 years-of-age was still 10.3 percent in that same month. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age was also still 26.3 percent in December 2011
The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 20.3 percent in December 2011; while the unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 7.5 percent during that same month. In December 2011, the jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age was also still 6.8 percent; while 3,713,000 white female workers over 20 years-of-age were still unemployed in that same month.
The number of white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age who had jobs also decreased by 15,000 (from 3,751,000 to 3,736,000) between November and December 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the total number of white workers in the U.S. labor force decreased by 109,000 (from 124,652,000 to 124,543,000) during the same period. And in December 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers (male and female) over 16-years-of-age was still 13,097,000; while the official jobless rate for all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age was stilll 8.7 percent in that same month.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ January 6, 2012 press release:
The number of officially unemployed Black workers increased by 79,000 (from 2,783,000 to 2,862,000) between November and December 2011; while the number of jobless Black female workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 91,000 (from 1,184,000 to 1,275,000) during the same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all Asian-American workers in the United States also increased from 6.5 to 6.8 percent between November and December 2011; while the number of unemployed Asian-American workers increased by 34,000 (from 480,000 to 514,000) during the same period, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data.
Between November and December 2011, the official jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 9.8 to 10.5 percent, according to the “not seasonally adjusted” data; while the number of unemployed Latino or Hispanic male workers over 20 years-of-age increased by 102,000 (from 1,285,000 to 1,387,000) during the same period. The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for all Latino or Hispanic workers was still 11 percent in December 2011; while the “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latina or Hispanic women workers over 20 years-of-age was still 10.3 percent in that same month. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for Latino or Hispanic youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age was also still 26.3 percent in December 2011
The official “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age was still 20.3 percent in December 2011; while the unemployment rate for white male workers over 20 years-of-age was still 7.5 percent during that same month. In December 2011, the jobless rate for white female workers over 20 years-of-age was also still 6.8 percent; while 3,713,000 white female workers over 20 years-of-age were still unemployed in that same month.
The number of white youths between 16 and 19 years-of-age who had jobs also decreased by 15,000 (from 3,751,000 to 3,736,000) between November and December 2011, according to the “seasonally adjusted” data; while the total number of white workers in the U.S. labor force decreased by 109,000 (from 124,652,000 to 124,543,000) during the same period. And in December 2011, the official total number of unemployed U.S. workers (male and female) over 16-years-of-age was still 13,097,000; while the official jobless rate for all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age was stilll 8.7 percent in that same month.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ January 6, 2012 press release:
“…The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 5.6 million and accounted for 42.5 percent of the unemployed...
“About 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force in December, little different from a year earlier…These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey…Among the marginally attached, there were 945,000 discouraged workers in December…Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them…
“…Employment in sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores fell by 10,000…Construction employment changed little in December…Employment in professional and business services changed little in December for the second month in a row…Government employment changed little in December but was down by 280,000 over the year. Job losses in 2011 occurred in local government; state government, excluding education; and the U.S. Postal Service…”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
