Macero Law P.C.

197 8^th Street

Boston, MA 02129

(617) 494-1115   ram@macerolaw.com

September 12, 2025

Dear Mr. Shen and Quirk

This letter is to express my opposition to the RFP of the Courageous Sailing Center.  While the Courageous Sailing Center has a worthwhile program, the RFP is completely out of line with Courageous’s mission and ability to manage this project. It also violates c.91 which requires waterfront uses for Pier 5 for over 50% of the space. 

As you know the community has been advocating for public open space at Pier 5 for many years.  Pier 5 Association Inc. submitted its proposal that the BPDA wrongfully failed to even consider in response to the RFP.  This failure to even consider what the community has been demanding demonstrates that the BPDA has created this RFP in collusion with Courageous for the express purpose of the BPDA’s monetary goals of making Pier 5 a revenue producing asset to the detriment of the community by depriving the community of this open space which it wants, deserves and demands. 

Pier 5 Association Inc. has over 5000 signatures on a Petition to make Pier 5 open public space for the community.  The BPDA has collected over $51million from the Charlestown Navy Yard in the last 10 years from rents, illegal transfer fees and other fees which the BPDA imposes and then uses these funds everywhere but Charlestown.  This must stop and stop now. 

The BPDA has committed $8-10 million to demolition Pier 5.  That money would be much better utilized by allowing Pier 5 Association Inc. to carry out its mission to make Pier 5 open public space and utilizing the $8-10 million to restore and stabilize Pier 5 for public use.

 Pier 5 – Courageous Proposal is fatally flawed.

Courageous’ proposal’s financial structure constitutes an illegal privatization of Pier 5.   As you know, Courageous has no capacity to raise the money to even begin to do the Proposed Project.  As such, it will require City funding (and much more than the $8-10million presently proposed by the BPDA for demolition).

1. Capital Costs – Shifted to the City

Courageous’ financing demonstrates its inability to finance the project proposed.  The stated cost was $80M pier reconstruction.  Courageous now attempts to shift this cost to the City through obscure “Contingencies” and deception.  The RFP explicitly capped the City’s contribution at $8M for demolition only — a limit the City has upheld.

Courageous’ budget ballooned from $73M to $150M for a project which demonstrates ‘Caviar taste on a Hamburger Helper Budget’ without even the resources for the hamburger. The original amount exceeds the City contribution amount of $8-10 million by $65million minimally.   Now Courageous claims that, out of no where, Courageous can pay the pier rebuild cost within the original $73M plan.  This is claim begs all believability since it would require Courageous to rewrite their pro forma mid-stream after the bid has been submitted.  If this were allowed it would be a direct violation of the RFP’s “best and final” rule and would be proof of bid rigging.

The Courageous claims of being able to finance the project are unsupported.  Without express proof of the actual source of the financing, Courageous financing is fantasy because it is not transparent, is contradictory and has no demonstrable viability. 

The Courageous contingencies would likely force the City to subsidize the project and incur financial liability because it would have to subsidize the ‘profits’ if revenues fall short and take on permanent responsibility for maintenance and repairs — leaving the public with ongoing costs.  While City maintenance expense would be acceptable if Pier 5 were an open public park (as proposed by Pier 5 Association Inc.), the Courageous proposal such as it is, would require the BPDA/City financing the privatization of Pier 5 and private operators use of Pier 5 with no capital risk. Since the City’s mission is to create public space (or at least it claims that Pier 5 will be publicly available space) the proposed profit-sharing scheme would mean that the City/BPDA would be in conflict with its ‘stated’ purpose and its statement of public use by putting the City’s capital at risk for the benefit of a private company. The City/BPDA has a conflict of interest between its position to create and maintain public space, which will be undermined by its need maximizing private revenue, which will benefit a private entity at taxpayer’s expense.  The City will undermine the public use just to cover its cost which creates 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 (now owned by Legends)— 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 (this violates c.30 which requires open public bid for disposition of City assets and City contracts). Another $3.5M (23% of expenses) is vaguely listed as “Cost of Goods Sold,” which looks like a deceptive ‘slight of hand’ to shift other private entity expenses or to the City/BPDA to permit ASM to have 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 proposal projects over $5M annually from immersive events, plus $885K from the Great Hall and $805K from Pier 4 events all of which are based upon privatization and not public use. Even the pool — presented as a public benefit — would charge users $336K a year despite being publicly funded. These numbers demonstrate a complete absence of public benefit and instead show an aggressive monetization of Pier 5 with a near-constant schedule of private, high-volume events.  These events would crowd out any availability to the community while being done at taxpayer expense.

Courageous’s proposal conspicuously fails to disclose anything about event frequency, crowd sizes, traffic, trash, or noise management for this aggressive event schedule to produce the revenue stream necessary to the model projection. Not only does this prevent residents from being able to evaluate the Courageous’ project’s full impact, but also materially misrepresents the significant impact a project of this scale would have on the Navy Yard and the nearby residents and the property devaluation that this will cause (which will result in lowering of tax assessments via abatement process as well as a lowering of ‘transfer fees’ when property values decline from the trash, noise and use). 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. There is also the concern of inadequate fire protection or access by fire and other emergency vehicles for the size of the venue and the sheer volume of events. Further, there is no trash or dumpsters and it will enhance the already overwhelming City rat problem as well as becoming a complete block to the Harbor Walk and all public access.

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. It also constitutes a complete violation of c.91 water front use statute.  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 deceptive 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 and deceptive 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,

Rosemary A. Macero

Macero Law PC

197 8^th St.

Boston MA 02129

617-494-1115