Boston City Council • Paul Scapicchio (North End): (617) 635-3200, Paul.Scapicchio@ci.boston.ma.us • Jimmy Kelly (South Boston): (617) 635-3203, James.Kelly@ci.boston.ma.us • Maureen Feeney (East Boston): (617) 635-3455, Maureen.Feeney@ci.boston.ma.us • Charles Yancey (Mattapan/Dorchester): (617) 635-3131, Charles.Yancey@ci.boston.ma.usCi • Dan Conley (Roslindale/Hyde Park): (617) 635-4210, Daniel.Conley@ci.boston.ma.us • Maura Hennigan (Jamaica Plain/West Roxbury): (617) 635-4217, Maura.Hennigan@ci.boston.ma.us • Chuck Turner (Roxbury): (617) 635-3510, Chuck.Turner@ci.boston.ma.us • Mike Ross (Back Bay/Fenway): (617) 635-4225, Michael.Ross@ci.boston.ma.us • Brian Honan (Allston/Brighton): (617) 635-3113, Brian.Honan@ci.boston.ma.us • Peggy Davis-Mullen (at-large): (617) 635-4220, Peggy.Davis-Mullen@ci.boston.ma.us • Stephen Murphy (at-large): (617) 635-4376, Stephen.Murphy@ci.boston.ma.us • Michael Flaherty (at-large): (617) 635-4205, Michael.Flaherty@ci.boston.ma.us • Mickey Roache (at-large): (617) 635-3115, Mickey.Roache@ci.boston.ma.us

THE RED SOX cannot afford to build a new ballpark in the Fenway neighborhood. Red Sox CEO John Harrington knows it. Mayor Tom Menino knows it. Prospective bidders for the team know it.

Still, the charade continues — much to the detriment of the Fenway. As the Boston Herald reported July 9, area businesses are bearing the brunt of the Sox’ bloated and ill-fated plans to build a new ballpark on about 15 acres of land next to the existing park. Tenants have moved out in anticipation, leaving property owners stuck with empty office and retail spaces. Arthur D’Angelo, owner of Twin Enterprises, which sells Red Sox souvenirs outside the park, told the Herald that he has tried over the past few months to rent out 40,000 square feet. He finally found a taker — but only for half the space. Even worse, the tenant refused to sign a lease, because who knows if the building will be standing a year from now? In recent months, empty storefronts have opened up on Boylston Street, which abuts the proposed site. The Phoenix Media/Communications Group, which owns property at 126 Brookline Avenue (third base under the new stadium plans), recently lost a major tenant as a result of the uncertainties and has had trouble re-renting the space since the city and state agreed to pay $212 million and $100 million, respectively, to help finance the Sox’ plans.

The horrible truth about this mini economic slowdown is that it’s completely artificial. The Fenway has been one of the fastest-growing areas of the city; over the past five years, commercial rents have doubled, and properties not slated for demolition under the stadium plan have been largely unaffected by the recent real-estate slump. The old Sears building was successfully redeveloped into the Landmark Center, an office complex that also houses a state-of-the-art movie theater, a day-care center, and major retailers such as Staples, which itself moved from a ballpark-threatened space on Boylston Street. Developers plan to build a hotel and housing complex across the street from the Landmark. In Kenmore Square, developers are building a luxury hotel with a gourmet restaurant. If Harrington, who told the Herald that the Fenway stadium plan “remains a very viable option,” and Menino, who still supports the ill-conceived project, were to announce tomorrow that the Fenway plan was dead, property owners would have no trouble renting space.

“The emperor has no clothes,” says Boston city councilor Maura Hennigan. “Everybody knows the Red Sox aren’t going to get their financing. Everyone knows this deal isn’t going anywhere, but everyone’s still pretending.” Hennigan intends to submit a resolution to the council on July 11 (after the Phoenix goes to press but before the paper is printed) declaring that the council will not approve any bond financing submitted by Menino to help finance the stadium deal. That said, Hennigan doesn’t think Menino has any intention of submitting the bond-finance legislation anytime soon — thus preventing the council from voting on the proposal. (Since the city and state announced their financial support for the Sox’ plan, eight of 13 councilors have announced their opposition — and only a simple majority is needed to kill it.)

But as long as the stadium deal remains a possibility — however remote — residents and business owners remain in limbo. Hennigan hopes her resolution will put the final nail in its coffin. Otherwise, Fenway business owners will be left “twisting out there,” she says. “People are suffering. It’s not right.” Councilor Mike Ross, who represents the Fenway, agrees: “We have an obligation to close the loop on the proposed ballpark plan,” he says. “Stores, businesses, the community itself is suffering.”

Since the Sox announced plans to build a new park in the Fenway three years ago, the estimated cost of the project has risen from $550 million to $665 million, with knowledgeable insiders saying that the final bill will approach $1 billion. In order to complete the plan, about 12 acres of land will have to be taken by eminent domain. This cannot be justified legally (let alone morally), given that the city would be taking land from private property owners — forcibly displacing current businesses and landowners — for a private, profit-making enterprise. Although just $140 million has been allocated for the costs of purchasing this land, experts say the real costs could be as high as $450 million (see “Fenway Neighborhood May Be Too Expensive for the Red Sox,” News and Features, May 25, 2000, available at www.bostonphoenix.com). And even with the unprecedented $312 million in city and state subsides, the team would still have to raise about $353 million — which it has been unable to do. The Sox would be responsible for all cost overruns, an amount that under this plan is unpredictable. Pursuing the eminent-domain approach could also delay the project for years as it winds its way through the courts. In the meantime, the Sox have yet to strike a deal with even one landowner to purchase property. According to a study released last month by Save Fenway Park, an analysis by Lake Forest College economics professor Robert A. Baade shows that the costs of a new stadium in the Fenway would hurt the Sox because profits would have to be spent on retiring massive debt and interest rather than on players’ salaries — which are immense. (Slugger Manny Ramirez, thus far acknowledged to have been a great acquisition, cost the team $160 million — $20 million more than the Sox have budgeted for the land costs.) Perhaps more surprising, political support for a new Sox stadium on the South Boston waterfront has been growing. Ironically, that’s where Harrington wanted to build in the first place, but he focused on the Fenway when Menino told him a ballpark in South Boston was politically impossible.

Hennigan’s proposed resolution would go far toward putting this boondoggle to rest. Just as important, it would prevent the city from paying out millions for another location in Boston. The new owners of the Red Sox are sure to be, in Hennigan’s words, “rich.” “If they can afford to buy [the Red Sox],” she says, “they can afford to build a new ballpark. We don’t belong in that arena.”

Hennigan tried to get a similar resolution passed at the end of last year, but the council never voted on it. “We thought it would do more harm than good,” she says of the past attempt. “I just think sometimes in this business timing is everything. I think for the benefit of taxpayers across the city and the Fenway businesses that are suffering, the timing is good now.”

We couldn’t agree more. For the good of the city, the Boston City Council should pass Hennigan’s resolution. Let your councilor know you support it too.

What do you think? Send an email to letters[a]phx.com.