Plutocracy and its discontents, continued

by Ben Geman

In the rainy days since Cellucci, Menino, et al. reached a deal, city councilors have been talking tough about blocking this taxpayer-financed scheme. At a Thursday hearing of the Fenway Planning Task Force, a group appointed to steer rezoning and planning of the neighborhood, Councilor Chuck Turner disputed claims that Menino just needs time to sway councilors with arguments and incentives such as goodies for their districts. "Many people think the council can be bought off, that those of us who have stood up to say no can be bought off," he said. "I choose not to think so."

Coming weeks will show whether Turner is right. Alternately ridiculed and ignored, and prone to chest-thumping with little to back it up, the Boston City Council has a reputation as a gang that can't shoot straight. Now, though, the councilors have a real chance to scuttle a plan that's too expensive, that would disrupt a functional commercial district, and that the neighborhood doesn't want. (See "Fenway Neighborhood May Be Too Expensive for the Red Sox," News and Features, May 26, and "Fenway: Another Hidden Cost," News and Features, June 16.)

Public pride? Advocates of a new Boston Red Sox stadium claim that public financing involved in the deal is justified because building a new park is in the state's and city's public and economic interest. And proponents of the plan must demonstrate that a public purpose would be served in order to justify the eminent-domain land-takings that the city would have to authorize to make the plan possible. But opponents of the stadium plan question whether the park would bring a sizable economic benefit, especially because the Fenway area is already commercially viable. They also argue that seizing land to benefit a private business is not what eminent domain is designed to do. The bill that the legislature passed over the weekend, with Governor Paul Cellucci's support, is torturously written to demonstrate that helping subsidize the Red Sox, a private corporation, is indeed in the state's and city's interest. According to the bill: * "The construction within the city of Boston of a new open air ballpark of sufficient size and with adequate support facilities to attract, retain and accommodate professional sports teams shall significantly enhance the economic development and general welfare of the commonwealth . . . " * "The construction and expansion of such activities shall stimulate hotel, restaurant, recreation, entertainment and retail sales activity in the ballpark development area and in the city of Boston, which shall in turn promote the overall economic development of the commonwealth, enhance employment opportunities for its citizens, increase tourism and increase the tax base . . . " * "The continuation and expansion of such activities shall enhance the public pride and spirit within the commonwealth and within the city of Boston . . . " * "The acquisition and financing by the city of Boston of a suitable site within the city for the new ballpark is in the furtherance of a public purpose and shall provide essential stimulus to the development of the ballpark and the economic health and development of the city and the community adjacent to the ballpark . . . " * "The construction of a new ballpark in the city of Boston and its use as a venue for professional sports events also requires construction, development, modernization and improvement of substantial support facilities to the ballpark including roadways, pedestrian walkways, bridges, public transportation facilities, lighting and other utilities and similar improvements. . . . "

Between four and seven councilors, depending on who's counting, are believed to be unshakably opposed to the plan. Turner, Ross, Maureen Feeney, Peggy Davis-Mullen, Maura Hennigan, Francis "Mickey" Roache, and Jimmy Kelly signed on to a recent statement opposing the deal. Late last week, the bloc reaffirmed that opposition in a letter to legislators, noting that a majority of councilors oppose "any plan that includes new or increased taxes, fees, surcharges or eminent domain land takings, with the exception of infrastructure costs, that would amount to public financing of a privately owned baseball park." Given that the plan approved by the legislature requires the city to take about 10 acres of private land (including the offices of the Boston Phoenix; see "Where We Stand," page 24) and relies on new revenue streams such as game-day parking surcharges, it's safe to say it flies in the face of the sworn opposition.

Menino, however, does not appear daunted. "We'll have to educate them on what the benefits are," he told the Phoenix as he left the State House after testifying at Friday's legislative hearing. "The city is not spending one taxpayer dollar. We get it all back." Menino and state officials say the city will recoup about $12 million per year -- more than enough to recover its investment costs. But anti-ballpark activists argue that the city's financial projections fail to take into account operating costs associated with the garage, increased public services associated with the deal, and other costs. Even if Menino is right about the city's making back its money, he may have harder time "educating" the councilors than he thinks.

Councilors oppose the plan for a variety of reasons. Ross says that it will wreak havoc on the neighborhood, causing increased congestion and other problems. Turner is playing the class angle, arguing that it will bring waves of gentrification in its wake. And Kelly just seems to want some respect from Menino, whom he's criticized for leaving councilors out of the planning process. The council president told the Phoenix last week that he was a firm "no" vote: "If the legislation is in any way similar to what I have read about over the last couple of days, I would not vote for it." Still, observers believe Kelly may be swayed if, for example, he can salvage a good deal for South Boston on waterfront development benefits.

Hennigan, meanwhile, questions the "public purpose" of the needed land-taking -- a criterion that must be met under the statute governing eminent domain (see "Deal Breaker," News and Features, July 14) -- and worries that Fenway traffic, already a nightmare on game days, will get worse with a larger stadium. Asked point-blank if there is a chance she will vote for the plan, her answer is a flat "no." That said, nobody would be shocked to see Hennigan come around. (One city-council staffer calls Ross, Roache, Turner, and Davis-Mullen the "hard-core four," a reference to suspicions that Feeney, Kelly, and Hennigan will eventually fold.)

Of the at-large councilors, Davis-Mullen and Roache have all the standard reasons to oppose the deal -- the cost, the disruptions, and so forth. But both councilors -- who are flirting with mayoral challenges to Menino -- may have another reason to oppose him on the year's biggest policy squabble. It's pretty simple: they get to position themselves opposite the mayor and claim they are standing up for the neighborhood at the same time. Not bad.

Page 1 | 2 |3 |4 | Next