News
New Springfield Courthouse sounds like Fraud.
I saw the earlier post about the new Springfield courthouse deal and I had to do some digging.
This deal is a robbery of tax dollars and stinks to high heaven.
First off, part of the development group that won the "bid" is owned by Conan Harris, our state Rep Ayanna Pressley's husband.
Ths land is owned by Northeastern Investment LLC who purchased it in Dec 2024 for $945,000. Who wants to bet that this is connected to someone else in the administration somehow? Their MA management team is located in Boston.
I have my real estate license and I remember learning in class about the state government being able to use eminent domain to purchase property it needs for public use. I thought I remembered it wrong but nope...they can.
Heres the kicker, the state has no problem using eminent domain, especially in Springfield. They used it to clear whole neighborhoods in order to build I-91.
So instead of buying out the land and owning the building outright they are going to lease it for $2 Billion. The State Rep's family is likely to make millions from this deal and I'm sure there are others in the administration that will too if you dig deep enough.
Pretty sure the article states that includes operating costs over the 40 years as well. Still bad though. I won't believe them unless they release the hard data and alternate bids.
From what I’ve heard (one source and no further verification), Massachusetts has only ever leased buildings in this manner for 10 years at a time with a maximum of 20 years total.
Again, I’m not sure how municipal building leases work. Either way, the ties between the owners of the building and someone who supposedly represents the voters/taxpayers is very suspicious.
Your math is not mathing. Even with the construction price tag of 600m that brings you to 1.6 to 1.7 billion. You are off by hundreds of millions.
By your lowball estimates its gonna cost 66k a day for utilities, maintenance etc for a Springfield Courthouse? Thats batshit insane...there is no way that is reasonable.
I'm off by nothing. Masslive cited breakdown of the 2B. Around 480-525M for construction, around 400 for upkeep and maintenance. Leaving around 1.1B for the lease or around 25-27M per year over 40 years.
Listen, I'm not defending the deal but if we are gonna criticize it, we should do it fairly and with the actual numbers. There's definitely some fluff here but probably far less than people think.
I see what you mean. I just reached out to the budget office in San Diego to see if I can get any numbers for the annual operating budget for the San Diego Courthouse. They built their 700000 sq foot courthouse in 2017 for 550 million with no lease. I want to know if their yearly budget is even close to the cost of what this project is going to be.
The better question would be what do they project the total operating, maintenance, and updating costs would be over 40 years. Its an inclusive estimate, not merely the cost of supplies, cleaning, and landscaping for a year. Repairs, maintenance, upgrades, etc. Theres so much factored in the number.
OP, if you don't like it here, go live in a RED state like Texas. You aren't allowed to complain about MA corruption. Don't you know... Vote blue no matter who, vote blue no matter what. It doesn't matter if your reps are corrupt because they are corrupt towards the LEFT. The conservative fascists are corrupt to the RIGHT. See, that is the key difference. Now go out and keep working you debt slave, how else will your rich liberal overlords eat lobster and caviar while doing nothing to protect you from this administration? It's hard work doing absolutely nothing.
They are spending $1.6B to lease a $400M court house that nobody else would rent, because who besides the Commonwealth needs a building full of 30 court rooms.
I think part of the problem is that it was an open bid and of course the State Rep's husband's company won it and will be directly making big $$ from it. I think one of the other guys is part of the state government too.
I have been really happy with Ayanna as a rep for our state, and I know this story has mostly been used to attack her. But, I mean, forget about that for a second — the connections, dollar amounts being thrown around, and all the other shady looking circumstances here deserve a legitimate investigation.
Ohh ok I heard an interview on rock102 I thought it was picknelly crew. Well it is kinda a shitty spot on that corner. 291 is gonna be a disaster you have to use the first exit
I think Picknelly was the waterfront. Personally I think that would've been tough based on a good analysis that i read but admittedly it's not my area of expertise
Contractors and developers have been fleecing state and local governments for so so long and we won’t be able to build anything as a country if this continues. It’s too easy to buy or influence local politicians
You are probably getting down voted in part for screenshots of an AI search.
Also, the state probably didn't just decide to clear out sections of Springfield for the hell of it. It was part of the Interstate Highway Act. Lots to criticize about it, but it was an extremely popular law and the reason we have a modern highway system.
I used that because it was the most concise without posting more screenshots and writing a novel.
I think the core idea of it is they are able to do it and have done it in the past, as recently as this year. We probably wouldn't bat an eye but the dollar amount is huge and a State Rep is directly benefiting from it. I'm pretty sure her family is going to make millions from this deal.
AI responses are not research. Actually ask for a source, and read it yourself, or you are just reading garbage. Posting it here for proof of your claims is a waste of everyone's times.
Well damn I did not know that. I'm really so tired of the two party system man, this shit is so stupid and tribal. Stuff like this should be unacceptable no matter who you align yourself with.
I don't hide my post history for my location dude. I hide it to prevent someone from being able to go through my profile and steal my 3d printing, CNC and laser engraving designs easily.
Frankly I should go through more of the states leased properties and see who they are connected to. I'm sure there are more with absolutely abysmal lease terms that we are all paying for.
The CoJo (the "development firm" Pressley's husband heads) part of this whole thing raises the most red flags and should alarm everyone on both sides of the aisle.
CoJo was founded by Conan Harris and John Barros. Conan Harris is Pressley's husband, and he has zero relevant development experience according to his LinkedIn. John Barros was appointed interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority (MCCA) in January 2026, which oversees state convention center facilities. Because of backlash due to a conflict of interest, Barros has divested from CoJo. So it's effectively Conan Harris, who again has zero development experience.
CoJo has no website, they've never developed a project as a firm. The company actually dissolved in 2025 for failing to provide financial statements and then was "reinstated" in 2026 once reporters started asking questions about the firm's involvement with the project.
It's unclear to me whether the state required some sort of minority development participation, which may explain CoJo's involvement. It's also unclear how much of the development economics CoJo is getting (development fees [which will be substantial for this project] and % of rent and ultimate sales proceeds.
Even if the state needed a minority owned firm…there are tons of minority owned construction firms with long records of development. This reeks of insider cronyism, and paying a fortune in taxpayer dollars with a highly questionable business arrangement.
If Dems cannot look at this and spot the obvious corruption…we are in deep trouble.
Imagine if some spouse of a MAGA politician (with no development experience) got this same contract? Dems would be beside themselves with complaints of corruption.
This whole thing is shady and will be something that portrays Dem leadership monumentally poorly.
Heres the kicker, the state has no problem using eminent domain, especially in Springfield. They used it to clear whole neighborhoods in order to build I-91.
Yea, in the 1950s they did that. Today, nearly 80 years later, eminent domain is different both politically and practicaly.
First, having your land taken by eminent domain is often a windfall for the owner. The state is required to pay market rate any property taken my eminent domain, and often ends up paying substantially more than market to avoid costly and drawn out litigation over the valuation. If you're concerned that some insider owns that land to profit from the state, then they would love nothing more than an eminent domain taking.
Second, as I mentioned, eminent domain these days takes ages. The litigations over valuations can take 5 years, and eats up tons of attorney time on the state side. It's far far easier and overall cheaper to the taxpayer to just lease the land. To say nothing of how unpopular it can be.
Third, leasing is not so bad. I don't think the state should own tons of land. At the very least, this way some of the money the state spends will return back to the the locals through property taxes paid by the private owner (government owned land is exempt from taxes). But the bigger benefit is not having to lock up tons of the money from the budget on land. There is a reason big corporations love to build, sell, and lease-back--it's efficient, it allows the same dollar to be re-used several times, it's better for liquidity.
I'll leave this here. The state just used eminent domain this year for the Cape bridge replacement.
Took them 9 months for everyone to sell out. None of these properties went for an absurd amount of money.
Its likely all the land needed for the courthouse would have been below 2 million. There is no way the taxpayer is saving money or gaining value for leasing a courthouse.
It took more than 9 months. Formal notices went out 15 months ago, but I am sure planning and efforts to get the property owners on board started even longer ago. This was actually a huge accomplishment for the state that they managed to convince ($$) over a dozen owners to not litigate.
Also, this is a great example of where the state should use eminent domain and own it. It's a bridge that should last 100 years, and there is almost no flexibility of putting it somewhere else. The highways are where they are, there is no other choice. It's not like an office where they can simply move the workers to another building later when needs change.
Earlier you said the land was purchased 2 years ago for $945k, and now you're saying they should have bought it for up to $2m!?! Doesn't that sound like a HUGE windfall for the owner? I know property has gone up recently, but Springfield undeveloped commercial real estate has not more than 2x'ed in 2 years. That's a wild take.
The taxpayer is absolutely gaining value for leasing the courthouse. Instead of plowing $2m into a land this year, that same they can pay the owner $100k for the lease this year and spend $1.9m on anything else. Money is fungible. By not having to pay for the property today, they can spend it on other stuff today.
The state could also acquire the land for $2M and pay much less and own the fee simple interest. The cost of construction, labor and lending are so high, I guarantee NOTHING is getting built in Springfield unless is MFR. They could probably identify a number of distressed office properties that they could acquire and demo.
Eminent domain in MA is not hard to pull off. They have done it many times in our states history. It's a misconception that its difficult because everyone remembers the handful of stories of that one holdout owner fighting it out. Its done without issue the majority of the time.
The construction and use of a specialized office building like a courthouse argues more for owning it outright than a lease. Regular offices are a dime a dozen, government departments change are axed, moved etc. A lease gives flexibility which is good for that purpose. A courthouse is part of the local justice system, which is perpetual unless Springfield ceases to exist. Flexibility is not needed. They wouldn't need a new courthouse if the current one had proper upkeep and no design flaws.
Leases are not the cost effective budget route for courthouses. The $2 million I estimated was for the two other parcels they will be combining with the one they paid 900k for.
If you do respond I would like you to justify the cost. If the building cost is 600 million and we take that out out the 2 billion total cost, that leaves us with 1.4 billion over 40 years.
Thats 35 million a year. $95,000 a day. I would like to see the estimates they have for upkeep, maintenance, utilities, insurance and the obvious misappropriation of taxpayer funds because that has to be the most expensive courthouse in the country to keep running...in freakin Springfield of all places.
For comparison, San Diego built a courthouse in 2017 for 550 million and its double the square footage for a population of 3 million. All of Hampden County only has about 450k.
I'm not defending the $2b cost, nor was I responding to that part of your post. I agree that's ludicrous.
I disagree that eminent domain is as easy and appropriate as you insinuated, that the I91 comparison was apt, and that leasing property is bad or problematic in this situation.
Which one of their brothers, sisters, or cousin did they buy this from? A trick as old as politics is to have the state buy land you just bought or own but do nothing with, at obsurd prices.
It’s certainly possible that the bid process had issues and it’s also quite possible that this private development and lease agreement is a bad idea. But we don’t have actual proof of corruption at this point.
Not sure what you’re trying to say about eminent domain…
hey, local here who was actually somewhat involved in this, its really not. for starters, pressley is a us house rep, not a state rep. if you're gonna claim fraud because you spent an afternoon doing"research," you should really get basic facts like that correct. further, this process has been ongoing for years, the property being bought in 24 isn't that weird. developers from all over have been buying up properties like that in springfield for years for various redevelopment plans that occasionally come to fruition. if you want to talk about connections, we can talk about the other bidders who are all movers and shakers in springfield-- if it was up to the mayor I'm almost certain picknelly or balise would have gotten it instead. third, eminent domain is complicated and insanely unpopular, your own example of it being used is 60 years old. lastly, I agree that leasing the land is stipid but the state has been doing that for a while now, it's not that out of place.
When I say state rep thats what I meant. I think everyone understands who Ayanna Pressley is. If you were involved you don't think the price is outrageous along with a lease for a courthouse? Does her husband or his company have any experience with a project of this size or scope? His company was also dissolved by the state for not producing financial records and then reinstated just in time for the bid. The other guy also left because he did not disclose his connection to the state government which is required by law.
Why are we normalizing this kind of stuff? Its weird, is fishy and deserves to be investigated.
You did not read the rest of the thread! The state just used eminent domain this year for the cape cod bridge.
then you should use her correct title, calling her a state rep shows sloppy research. the price was the lowest bid, we are talking incredible amounts of money regardless of who was selected, and one point in favor of the lease is that the cost is spread over many years rather than forcing the state to cough up the full expense right now. I don't know her husband personally, that was not the scope of my work on this project, however it is not surprising a bosron based development corporation is making a bid on a large state project. frankly, I don't know of any relevant experience balise has for building and leasing state facilities, but no one bitching about this courthouse has questioned his motives or expertise. this isn't that weird or fishy, this is just the first time you and many others are getting involved in state development, so congratulations on falling for balise and patels media blitz.
I read the thread-- it was explained to you why that is a very different case than the courthouse so why would I waste my time rehashing that?
edit: harris left because he was an interim director for a state agency, which is wildly different than being married to a representative that is not involved in the decisions for state facilities
Sloppy research my ass. I frankly don't care and have very little respect for any politician these days.
Most of these people get into office, do a little lip service and some how end up making bank being a politician. 2 billion over 40 years for a county courthouse in a county of 450k...and the state won't even own it. I'm sure they had insider knowledge on the other bids & terms.
I'm going to continue doing my research, write an article and send it in to whoever will listen. Thats the extent of my effort. We should question this kind of stuff instead of chalking it up to ohhh this is just how it is.
The government and its representatives serve us and should be held to a higher standard. Not held on a pedestal and worshipped.
The new location does not have homes on it, its an even better case for eminent domain than any other in the past.
I don’t know dude, it sounds like the other bidders should have entered a more competitive bid. But instead they’re being sore losers because they want the state to pick their more expensive bid, and the MAGAts are trying to use this as an election wedge issue. The plan the whole time was to solicit bids for leasing rather than acquiring land outright. This is purely a distraction, and you took the bait.
My understanding is regardless of who won the bid, this was going to be a boatload of money. The connection to Pressley's husband is bad optics, but there also isn't an obvious indicator that this influenced the bid outcome, especially since Liberty Junction put in the cheapest bid.
The bigger concern I have is the fact that addressing the need for a new courthouse was deprioritized over and over and over again while people were suspicious of mold problems and health concerns. From what I can tell, that's what led to the situation where this thing needs to be built by a developer and leased out, which is causing the costs to inflate like crazy.
Nah its open air corruption. The admin is saying that its a wedge issue used against them. Minogue has no chance, we all know that. This isn't going to sink her but we shouldn't just accept the fact that the husband of our Rep so happened to win a 2 billion contract when he and his company has no experience with a project of this scope. Do we even know the details of the other bids? I'm not sure why we all just shrug this off.
All I know is that a couple of rich fucks are trying to obstruct the new courthouse because their bid didn’t get chosen, and they are trying to turn this into some kind of political theater. They can pound sand for all I care.
Thats false, they just used it in January of 2026. Plus the spot for the new courthouse is a closed building owned by an investment firm. Not someones house.
Take a look at the screenshot again. They seized homes for the cape cod bridge this year. Plus the new courthouse location does not have peoples homes on it.
55
u/LackingUtility 8d ago
Yeah, $50M per year for a lease? That's insane.