Dear Boston Planning Department,

My name is James Lee, a retired architect and ten-year resident of the Charlestown Navy Yard. I strongly oppose both proposals for Pier 5 and urge the BPDA to reject them outright.

I.         Pier 5

The proposal’s financial structure reveals how this proposal would be funded, who profits, the neighborhood impacts it conceals, and the RFP violations it contains.

1. Capital Costs – Shifted to the City

Courageous’ financing strategy underscores its lack of capacity. Unable to fund the $80M pier reconstruction, Courageous attempted to shift this cost to the City through obscure “Contingencies.” The RFP explicitly capped the City’s contribution at $8M for demolition only — a limit the City has upheld.

When Courageous’ budget ballooned from $73M to $150M, they responded by suddenly claiming — without evidence — that they could absorb the rebuild cost within the original $73M plan. Such a reversal would require rewriting their pro forma mid-stream, a direct violation of the RFP’s “best and final” rule. Their financing is opaque, inconsistent, and likely nonviable.

Two other contingencies would force the City to subsidize profits if revenues fall short and take on permanent responsibility for maintenance and repairs — leaving the public with ongoing costs while private operators face no capital risk. Even worse, a proposed profit-sharing scheme would co-opt the City into maximizing private revenue, creating a conflict of interest that undermines its duty to protect the public interest.

2. Operating Profits – Flow to Courageous and ASM Global

While costs fall on the public, revenues flow entirely to private hands. ASM Global — a multinational venue operator — would control every rentable square foot. Space rentals alone make up 54% of total revenue; $3.6M in annual management fees (41% of expenses) go to ASM without competitive bidding. Another $3.5M (23% of expenses) is vaguely listed as “Cost of Goods Sold,” raising concerns about hidden profits through ASM’s food, beverage, and event services.

Courageous also skipped the RFP-required market study to justify rental rates, relying instead on ASM’s “domain knowledge.” In effect, ASM sets prices, runs venues, and bills the project without any independent oversight — a structure designed for private gain at public expense.

3. Neighborhood Impacts – Concealed in the Revenue Model

The pro forma projects over $5M annually from immersive events, plus $885K from the Great Hall and $805K from Pier 4 events. Even the pool — presented as a public benefit — would charge users $336K a year despite being publicly funded. These numbers imply aggressive monetization and a near-constant schedule of private, high-volume events.

Yet Courageous discloses nothing about event frequency, crowd sizes, traffic, trash, or noise management. Without this information, residents cannot gauge the project’s full impact. What’s clear is that the Navy Yard’s narrow streets and scarce parking cannot absorb large private events without gridlock, blocked emergency access, and degraded quality of life for neighbors.

4. Key RFP Violations

Beyond these cost, profit, and impact issues outlined above, this proposal also violates several core RFP provisions designed to safeguard the public interest and ensure transparency.

·       Cost Responsibility (p.25): City contribution capped at $8M; Courageous shifts $80M to City.

·       Total Cost Reporting (p.32): Pier rebuild costs omitted from stated $72.7M figure.

·       Legitimate Market Study (p.33): Proposal fails to provide independent market study.

·       Final Submission Rule (p.35): Post-deadline cost changes violate “best and final” rule.

·       Financial Capacity (p.36): Courageous lacks funding.

·       Execution Criteria (p.37): Proposal fails to show financial viability.

·       Site Improvements (p.41): Proponent must pay all site costs; Courageous does not.

Taken together, this proposal shifts costs and risks to the public, while concentrating profits and controls in private hands — and concealing vital information from residents and regulators. Coupled with clear RFP violations and a fundamentally unviable plan, these flaws leave the BPDA no choice but to reject the Pier 5 proposal.

II.       PIER 4

Though the RFP applies only to Pier 5, Courageous bundled Pier 4 into its plan to gain control of both sites without a separate review.

The bundling is more than rhetorical. Despite holding only a short-term license on Pier 4 and no authority to make long-term financial commitments, Courageous includes $805,000 in annual Pier 4 event revenue to support Pier 5’s 40-year debt service. Without it, Pier 5’s financial plan collapses — even before adding the $80 million required to rebuild the pier.

Pier 4 itself has already received $10 million in public upgrades and is ready for expansion, with plans for an 15,000-square-foot facility and a long-term lease reportedly in discussion. Courageous does not need Pier 5 to grow, but uses it as leverage to gain control of both piers through one bundled approval.

By omitting these facts, Courageous creates a false narrative that Pier 5 is essential to its mission. In reality, Pier 4 alone meets its program needs — the “Pier 4+5” plan is a two-for-one takeover of six acres of public harborfront, hidden in plain sight.

BPDA must reject this bundling and require that any future decision on Pier 4 go through its own open, competitive RFP process.

III.    THE MARINA

On its face, the marina fails to meet even the baseline requirements of the RFP — no open space, no civic or cultural programming, no public recreation. It is not a project that celebrates the waterfront as a shared civic asset, but rather a commercial parking lot for boats. The BPDA should dismiss this bid outright.

IV.    A BETTER ALTERNATIVE: HARBOR PARK & POOL

The marina proposal privatizes the water; Courageous’ proposal monetizes the land. It’s time for a non-commercial, community-centered alternative — one that creates public value instead of private profit.

Charlestown is rapidly growing, with nearly 4,000 new housing units coming on line within a 10–15 minute walk of Pier 5. Transforming Boston’s last open pier into its first Harbor Park & Pool would fulfill the City’s commitment to expand open space as the neighborhood grows, giving families room to gather, play, and connect with the waterfront.

The site’s symbolic location at the head of the harbor offers unmatched potential. Boston Harbor, once polluted, is now a swimmable jewel thanks to a multi-billion-dollar cleanup. Pier 5 should become a city-wide recreation destination — a landscaped Harbor Park offering shade, green space, and gathering areas alongside a floating Harbor Pool with inclusive swimming, saunas, and skyline views — a blue-and-green sanctuary offering every Boston resident world-class harbor access.

The Harbor Park and Pool is a legacy project as bold as the Harbor cleanup itself — a lasting testament to Boston’s belief that public land must always serve public good.

V.      CONCLUSION

Pier 5 is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of the Boston harbor. The Courageous and Marina proposals both fail this moment — permanently transferring public value into private hands. Boston deserves better.

The BPDA must:

·      Reject both current proposals for Pier 5.

·      Launch a new RFP for a non-commercial Pier 5 that maximizes public benefit.

·      Require a transparent, competitive RFP process before awarding any long-term lease for Pier 4.

With vision and leadership, Boston can transform Pier 5 into a Harbor Park and Pool — a bold symbol of the city’s commitment to families, communities, and a resilient, shared waterfront, leaving a lasting legacy for future generations.

Sincerely,

James Lee

197 8^th St.

Charlestown, MA 02129