Rendering of Boston Convention Center expansion (Courtesy of Massachusetts Convention Center Authority).
Upton, MA …Today Shawn Craig, Republican candidate for State Representative and Iraq war veteran, sharply criticized the recent passage of the Boston Convention Center expansion bill.
“When authorizing $1.1 billion in bonding, there should be far more scrutiny. The expansion bill is a bad bill. It is corporate welfare for a hotel. It lacks oversight. It is not economically feasible,” said Craig.
Within the last 2 weeks the House passed a bond bill for $1.1 billion to expand the Boston convention center. The bill provides $110 million in public subsidies to build a hotel. The decision as to who gets to reap the public subsidies will solely be made by the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority. Worse yet, the legislation allows the Convention Center Authority to be exempt from the open records law and the open meeting rules.
“The Convention Center Authority is being allowed to spend $1.1 billion without any oversight. That’s wrong. How many more scandals do we need? The Convention Center Authority should not be exempt from the open records or open meetings,” said Craig. “Having worked to stop fraudulent financial practices, there’s a lot of red flags going up here. You have a questionable methodology used by the Convention Center Authority to determine economic impact, a rosy economic outlook, a veil of secrecy prohibiting anyone from looking at financial information, zero guidelines to be observed in selecting a developer, and all the downside risk dropped on the taxpayers. I can say from my professional experience that this has the makings of a scandal written all over it.”
The bill is now in the Senate and will likely come up for a vote this week.
“I would like to know where my opponents stand on this legislation. Are they opposed? Or do they want accountability of our tax dollars,” asked Craig.
“Having worked in finance in the private sector, I know the law of supply and demand. There is no demand for convention center space. In fact, there is an overabundance of space. It makes no economic sense to expand the center and spend $1.1 billion,” said Craig. “Moreover, we should not be handing out $110 million in public subsidies to build a hotel. That’s corporate welfare at its worst.”
On a different campaign matter, last week Craig called for an end to legislative per diems that pay for legislators commuting expenses. He challenged his opponents Marty Green and David Muradian to pledge not to take per diems and to work to end this legislative perk. Craig has sent both candidates a pledge to sign if they agree. Neither candidate has responded.
“I am disappointed that neither candidate has decided to join me in calling for an end of per diems. I don’t believe that legislators should get this special perk. They should have to pay to drive to work like the rest of us,” said Craig.
Legislators can claim a per diem for every day they go to the State House. The amounts vary from district depending on the distance representatives have to drive to the State House. It ranges from $10 per day to $90. Last year Senator Stan Rosenberg claimed the most in per diems. He accepted $12,840.
The Abolish Per Diem Pledge simply requests that if elected that person will refuse to take per diems and work to end the legislative perk.
UPTON DAILY 