City Council may try to raise stakes in Filene's Hole battle

By adamg on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 8:55am

The Herald reports the City Council has formed a special committee on gambling. Part of its role will be to figure out if everybody in Boston should vote on allowing a casino at Suffolk Downs, but it may also attempt to leverage Vornado Realty Trust's 20% ownership of Suffolk Downs into getting it to do something about the Hole, of which it is the majority owner.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

A casino in the Filene's Hole.

By jmeltzer on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:25am.

And luxury condos above it!

Meanwhile, John Hynes, another Filene's Hole partner

By Dan Farnkoff on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:49am.

is clear to build a hip, funky condo development in the Seaport District. Nobody worried about leaning on him- maybe because he's a Red Sox fan or something?

I still say they should take the hole with eminent domain. Put Bill Sinnott and the rest of Menino's legal legion to work on something worthwhile for once. Make it a museum or a park or sell it to someone who's serious about developing it. But that would mean elevating the stakes for real, not just the indulgence in periodic lip service rhetoric from windbags like Murphy. Maybe our new citywide hero Ayanna Pressley could call a hearing on the DTX crisis and the possibility of eminent domain. Kairos Shen, Bill Sinnott, and Ron Rakow could testify. Kelo vs. New London, though a regrettable decision, seems to pretty clearly establish the right of the City to undertake such a process.

Have any of the neighboring businesses sued the city yet for the damage caused to DTX by this colossal failure of urban planning?

i wasn't familar with the

By neuroboy on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:02am.

i wasn't familiar with the Kelo decision but wikipedia solved that. . . kind of a depressing ending to that story:

"The city eventually agreed to move Susette Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a dump by the city."

It'd be nice to see the decision put to positive use by putting an end to that eyesore downtown.

Kelo involved a non-blighted

By Steve Brady on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 12:32pm.

Kelo involved a non-blighted area, so even if one saw that decision as an expansion of eminent domain, that's shouldn't be a problem with the Hole. It's pretty clearly a blighted area.

Excellent point. Are you listening, Councilor Pressley?

By Dan Farnkoff on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:37pm.

Step up to the plate.

Doesn't much matter

By Stevil on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 4:21pm.

The courts have defined blight generally as less than the full economic potential of an area. They have also left the interpretation of blight to local authorities such as the BRA.

One of the reasons Liberty Mutual argued they should get tax breaks is because the site was blighted. The current building foundation was on wooden pilings - i.e - basically the entire Back Bay is "blighted" even though per square foot it is some of the most valuable property in the country. That, and other aspects of their argument that the corner of Columbus and Berkeley are "blighted", were successful in helping them obtain tax breaks that exceeded their acquisition cost of the land.

Not that I side with Vornado or Chiofaro - but their arguments are basically give us a break like LibMu and we will build. Until then it's not our fault we made a stupid investment and you can have a parking lot and a hole in the ground.