Fact-checking Kevin McCrea

I have a longer write up response to Bruce here.

We both were busy today but had a good talk about these issues.

So the City thinks the parcel they sold to Rourke for $5000 was only worth $56,000. Earlier this year, Sam Yoon challenged the Mayor to sell the Curley House and Menino said he wouldn't do it because he would get 10 cents on the dollar. That would have been better than the deal he gave Rourke.

If the 121A agreement was binding why did the BRA get 1.1 million dollars each time the building was sold to renew the tax break?

Tax rates check out.

Notice he didn't address the drop out rates! There is a link on my blog, along with links and data on the other accusations.

"A BRA official said McCrea is incorrect about the city's ability to cancel the 121A agreement. "We can't unilaterally end the contract," the official said, except if the new owner is incapable of carrying out the terms of the original agreement. He said that has not been the case with any of the sales because the building is already built."

According to an article by Shirley Kressel in the South End news last year, the BRA collects a fee for renewing the 121A. In the case of One Beacon about $1 million each time it has changed hands over the past 10 years - it has sold 3 times. Why would they have any incentive to check if this can be revoked. This transfer fee is apparently a "negotiated" deal - not in the contract. If that's the case it's a little hard to buy in to the "it's a contract" argument.

Adam - Did we read the same Bruch Mohl post? I didn't see many, if any, facts in it that contradict McCrea. Mostly it is a bunch of City employees defending their boss.