Fort Point and the “Innovation District” is one of the hottest property markets in the world. There is no end to the number of firms that would like to locate there.
So, of course, the GE is going to be there at the giant cost of… rent free.
Courtesy of the Boston taxpayer.
In a city where rent is so high that there’s more homeless people living in it than in LA and almost every city in the country, we’re giving one of the country’s top 10 most profitable businesses a brand world new headquarters, rent free.
Rent free.
But, then, why should any of us be surprised? Our politicians already gave them $150 million in tax goodies, plus a brand new $100+ million free bridge.
Free rent is like peanuts in a deal like that.
The GE is one of the most powerful, profitable companies in the world — and they know paying for their share (any part of it, never mind a fair part) in a corrupt oligarchy like ours is for suckers.
They don’t care about what kind of message this sends or how this will rob Boston’s schools of millions, and apparently our elected leaders don’t, either.
Boston can watch as its homelessness spikes, schools shutter and people have to leave the city in droves, in a state that’s become ground zero for the country’s divide between the rich and poor.
For most of us, it’s worrying, or at least distressing.
But for the elites? They don’t have to worry about it. For them, it’s not an economic crisis — just a business opportunity.
For those interested in protesting such largesse toward tax evaders/polluters amidst steep cuts to schools and public services: https://www.facebook.com/events/1703350796571218/
Wow.
I suppose there’s some rational explanation, like maybe some other city only offered 19 years of free rent.
-GE has been fighting cleaning up the Housatonic River in Pittsfield and Baker/Walsh didn’t even bother putting the clean up on the table
-State EPA is actively suing GE to do its job and we then give them free money that isn’t theirs they don’t need
-The deal was done in secret by two executives without any legislative input from the council or statehouse at any step of the way despite taxpayer money being on the line
-95% of these jobs will be directly coming from Fairfield, few existing Massachusetts will really be getting opportunities out of this deal
-GE’s exec said he wanted to see MIT students instead of deer outside his window; he was gonna want to come here whether we paid him or not NYC doesn’t have the same caliber of tech talent
-$181,000 per job is not a good investment
-TIF money and tax incentives should be going to Gateway cities, not to mention we are cutting a few million more from the Boston schools that we are giving to GE making Boston Public even less attractive to families and less likely kids in Roxbury get to grow up and work for companies like GE
This was a bipartisan deal with few opponents on the council or statehouse. This is the kind of bipartisanship we need less of, and I’m proud of the role my
party played in forcing disclosures and getting in front of the chorus of yes men and women addicted to corporate welfare. It’s time our government governs and creates an economic climate where everyone has equal access to jobs and education, not just the connected.
… I could say that no members of BMG were injured in the writing of this diary, but the complexities of the issue seem to have broken a number of you quite extravagantly…
Sigh. You’re the reason, ryepower, why we can’t have nice politics. You see words like ‘rent free’ and leaping to conclusions, that is to say not bothering to understand what’s actually going on, get your screed on.
This is not in addition to the $150 million in tax goodies. This is part of it. And the bridge is a public throughway.
Let’s walk this through:
P&G presently own the land. They presently occupy it rent free. Because they own it.
P&G has agreed to sell the land to GE, probably for a very large sum of money. At the point of sale GE will own the land. They will then occupy it rent free. Because they will own it. If they did nothing else they would continue to occupy the land rent free.
In order to trigger some of the terms of the (possibly as high as) $150 million tax breaks, GE will transfer ownership of historic buildings of the land (likely by sale) to the BRA who will then lease it back to GE for 20 years. The terms of the transfer and the actual terms of the lease are as yet undisclosed but it is entirely possible that the terms of the lease will be rent free.
GE can buy a chunk of land, immediately sell of part of it with stipulation in the sale of a 20 year lease with no rent… That’ll probably help determine the price of the sale… and move on. This is not the graft your looking for.
They got a package of goodies for $150 million. We knew what was in that package of goodies.
In addition to that package of goodies there was language that *if* the BRA owned the land, then the GE could have it for rent free. The BRA *does not currently own the parcel of land referenced in this article.*
And the public was sold this idea with the idea brought forward to them that the GE didn’t know exactly where it wanted to build, and zero people (that I’m aware of) ever conceived of the underhanded, duplicitous notion that the BRA was always going to own the land, no matter where it was built. I guess none of us were creatively evil enough to conceive of that.
You may think the GE would innocently buy the land and sell it to the BRA, but why on earth would they do that… when the BRA could buy the land (and probably for a good price, given that they could just take it) and then give it to the GE rent free.
And even if the GE bought it first and then sold it right back to the BRA, the only kind of sense that would make is for them to 1) avoid paying property taxes on it and 2) be able to, in 20 years from now, threaten to move.
And why include that BRA free-rent language in the deal if the GE didn’t intend to do this all along? If this was the intention all along, shouldn’t that have been made clear to the public up front, or do taxpayers no longer deserve honesty, transparency and a hint of whatever the fuck is going on in our name and with our tax dollars?
Really, petr…. trying to excuse anything in this deal is almost as shocking as the deal itself. When the GE can get a deal like this in a market that is otherwise red hot — where we can’t build the buildings businesses want fast enough to keep up with the market — then the idea that we’re still a democratic republic is really, truly made laughable.
Stick a fork in the Commonwealth. We’re done.
There are plenty of legit reasons to dislike GE, you don’t have to manufacture reasons to dislike them. I’m not trying to excuse anything. I’m trying to get you to hate them on a realistic basis.
GE is buying about 2.5 acres of land. On this 2.5 acres sit two buildings that are historically protected (changes to them are heavily regulated). It is these two buildings…
AND ONLY these two buildings which will be transferred to the BRA and which the BRA will lease back to GE for 20 years.
… The remainder of the 2.5 acres of property, upon which GE will build its brand new global HQ, at their own expense, and for which they will pay all applicable property taxes (less the 25mil /20 years already agreed to…), is not germane to the discussion of ‘rent free’ leases, yet you act as though it is.
GE is going to spend in excess of 100 million dollars to acquire the land from P&G, renovate existing buildings (to the extent allowed by conservation regulation) and build a new global HQ that is, at present, not even a gleam in the architects eye. It will then transfer ownership (details pending) of the renovated historical buildings to the BRA and get a low- or no- cost lease for 20 years.
…GE is building, from scratch, a brand new world headquarters at their own expense, on a parcel of the land that is adjacent to the historical buildings that are at the center of your misguided screed.
The building that is going to be GE world headquarters doesn’t exist right now. When it is built it will be on land owned completely and wholly by GE. It is not part of the historical buildings the ownership of which will be transferred to the BRA possibly in exchange for a 20 year rent-free lease.
Either do your homework before you post or don’t post. It’s really simple.
If this is such a fair deal, why not give it to everyone in the Commonwealth? Or every business looking to move here?
I posted a link from Boston Magazine… which, you know… did their homework. I did not misrepresent anything from that article.
You’re saying lots and lots and lots of things in this thread with zero attribution. Feel free to offer some actual evidence that Boston Magazine is wrong, directly rebutting the article. Until then, maybe don’t go around telling people they’re wrong and shouldn’t post without a shred of evidence when you’re not offering a shred of evidence?
Given that you didn’t even reference the article in anything that you said, I have the strong suspicion you didn’t even read it.
I read it. And I read every article linked therein. Them’s my sources: your sources. Derp
I’m forced to conclude that you read it and didn’t understand it.
Does the City own the property GE will be using? Is the City covering the rent for them? Usually rental arrangements are between tenant and landlord.
they will hand over the buildings to the BRA, which will lease it back to GE. That somehow benefits GE and triggers a part of their incentive plan.
Confused? Me too. I imagine we’ll hear more about it. But this take of free rent, doesn’t jibe with common sense knowing that GE purchased the land and buildings in the first place. We’ll see.
The Boston magazine link says:
That, as I read this, is the “rent-free” part. It sounds like the BRA is buying the buildings, or taking them by eminent domain. IF GE were paying, I don’t know why the BRA wouldn’t just say that.
Furthermore there would be no need for BRA to lease them to GE at all, unless that somehow eases zoning restrictions (it doesn’t sound like that).
Maybe the BRA could clarify this? Maybe they do this routinely, and this is just a high-visibility example, maybe Boston screwed up.
Buying the buildings is the same as emminent domain. Emminent domain is not free property for the government… It’s basically a forced sale to the government and the government has to compensate at fair market value.
Maybe the BRA doesn’t “just say that” because they assumed you knew that…?
BRA should not make assumptions. I try not to.
If it is “forced sale to the government,” then the government is paying, not GE.
The land is then leased to GE, at no cost.
Thanks for helping to prove the point, and throwing in the condescension as a tip.
… what? You’re very confused about the point you think I’ve proven.
The government was always going to pay for the buildings. The government was always going to lease them back to GE… very likely for “rent free.”
What you’re not getting, in your blind zeal to unmask a perfidy that may not be there, is the (as yet) undisclosed relationship between “rent free” and the sale price. GE is purchasing buildings it can neither demolish nor expand (because they are protected as historical buildings), renovating the interiors to the extent allowed and transferring them to the BRA in exchange for twenty years of tenancy: during which tenancy they will build their very own world HQ in the remainder of the 2.5 acre parcel.
If the value of the buildings is X dollars and the value of twenty years of rents is Y and GE says “we’re going to spend Y dollars on the rennovation, we’ll take the sale price X with Y ( rents) of zero.”. Or, they can add Y to cost of sale and pay the rents. Nobody gets ripped off
Countering a good rant with facts.
GE said they purchased here … Globe
Ge will rehab the brick building with the BRA (so maybe that’s where the dollars kick in) and GE would build the new building. The after the rehad somehow the BRA would own the building and lease to GE.