[21stcenturymichael]

On the other hand payment from the developer might be negotiated as a "public benefit" (section 37) in return for additional density. I'm not sure if negotiations have been concluded between the City and developer in this regard.

The section 37 contributions have mostly been made, I understand, way back in the 90s when the original project was still moving forward.

 

[21stcenturymichael]

I doubt it - and even if they had done it back in the late 80s, they would have had to have redone it an infinite number of times since then, as the various ownerships and mortgages on both sites changed. Those agreements have to be renegotiated and/or consents obtained from every party involved every an interest in the property changes, so no one would do it and pay all those needless legals prior to actual need.

Not really. If there is anything on title, it would be highly unlikely that the agreement would not have been made binding on all future owners and parties with any interest in the property. That's standard for development agreements.

 

[andreapalladio]

Actually, having worked on these transactions, any time any percentage of any building connected to the PATH is transferred or encumbered, consents and or new agreements have to be obtained from every party with an interest in or abutting the tunnel.