Plutocracy and its discontents, continued

by Ben Geman

As the anti-stadium councilors brace for the lobbying onslaught, they won't be without allies themselves. Stymied at the state level, groups such as the coalition Citizens Against Stadium Subsidies (CASS) now see other battlefields. Not only will they lobby councilors, but opponents are planning a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of taking land for the project.

They said 'no' Last Saturday, the state legislature approved a bill providing a total of $312 million in state and city aid for the Boston Red Sox' new Fenway-neighborhood stadium plan. The package includes $100 million in state aid for neighborhood infrastructure, $140 million in city loans to buy and prepare private land for the new park, and another $72 million in city money to finance a new 3000-car parking garage. The package, which Governor Paul Cellucci supports, easily passed the legislature (127 out of 158 representatives and 28 out of 40 senators voted for it). But some members opposed the law. The dissidents: State Senators Stephen Brewer (D-Barre) Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln) Guy Glodis (D-Worcester) Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) Marian Walsh (D-Boston) Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) State Representatives Steven Angelo (D-Saugus) Ruth Balser (D-Newton) Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) Gloria Fox (D-Boston) Chris Hodgkins (D-Lee) Frank Hynes (D-Marshfield) Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville) Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) Maryanne Lewis (D-Dedham) Jim Marzilli (D-Arlington) Anne Paulsen (D-Belmont) Ruth Provost (D-Sandwich) Byron Rushing (D-Boston) Jose Santiago (D-Lawrence) Harriett Stanley (D-West Newbury) Ellen Story (D-Amherst) Martin Walsh (D-Boston) Nancy Caffyn (R-Mashpee) Thomas George (R-Yarmouthport) Robert Hargraves (R-Groton) Bradford Hill (R-Ipswich) Barbara Hyland (R-Foxborough) Shaun Kelly (R-Dalton) John Locke (R-Wellesley) Mary Jeanette Murray (R-Cohasset) Susan Pope (R-Wayland)

The activists opposing the plan say it would be illegal to take by eminent domain the 10 acres of land the team will need to acquire. In the public-relations and legal arenas, this may prove to be one of the opponents' best lines of attack. Eminent domain -- the power by which government can seize private land -- requires takings to meet the standard of a "public purpose." The "public purpose" here is hard to defend. Consider Cellucci's meaningless boilerplate when discussing why the plan suits a public purpose. "It's urban renewal. It's economic growth. That's the public purpose," said the governor at Friday's legislative hearing on the bill (see "Public Pride?", page 23).

Anti-stadium activists hope the court sees it differently and concludes that the incredible force of eminent domain is not appropriate here. In fact, it's a broad, sweeping power that shouldn't be brought to bear so the John Harringtons of the world can get nicer digs, opponents say. Herbert Gleason, the city's former corporation counsel, who's now working with stadium opponents, has argued that the plan does not clear the public-purpose threshold. Dan Wilson of Save Fenway Park (a member group of CASS) agrees with that analysis. "We are talking about taking land for a private business and giving it to another private business," says Wilson, who's also an attorney. "Private-to-private is not what eminent domain was established to do. . . . To say that you can do that because you prefer one business over another flies in the face of the basic principles behind eminent domain."

"We have been arguing for six months that the economic benefits are a bunch of malarkey," says MassPIRG's legislative director, Rob Sargent. And even if those benefits were real, he says, "That should not bolster the argument that there is a public purpose. By that logic, someone could decide that any piece of property could be taken if somebody decided that someone could do more for the economy with it."

And there are other arguments against the deal. As Sargent points out, the Red Sox' plans for that parcel of land may not be best for the economy at all. Several months ago, MassPIRG issued a report disputing the business community's claims about the economic benefits that would flow from the park -- specifically, Chamber of Commerce predictions of more than $100 million in increased fan spending each year.

Then there's the neighborhood itself. The Fenway is a dense residential area that already suffers from game-day congestion, and under the city plans it would see a net increase of about 400 parking spaces. Pledges of roadway and mass-transit improvements notwithstanding, it's hard to imagine that the new park won't worsen crowding on the neighborhood's already cramped streets. Although open-air lots are slated to disappear if the plan moves ahead, a recent Boston Herald story suggested it would take hours to empty cars from the planned 3000-car garage onto the Fenway's streets, which are hardly wide enough to handle the deluge.

Finally, groups such as the Fenway Community Development Corporation advocate a vision of mixed-use development on both sides of Boylston Street that includes small neighborhood businesses and housing. City Hall and the team have been trying to co-opt this model, pushing the idea that the ballpark is a catalyst for bringing that "urban village" closer to reality. But, as Fenway CDC community-organizing director Jethro Heiko says: "The problem with that argument, and the mayor knows this, is that the urban-village plan calls for housing on the same site [where] the Red Sox are taking land for a stadium. You cannot have the urban village plan and the stadium." What's more, the group believes that with the new park, new development on Boylston Street will consist mainly of bars, souvenir shops, and the like.

Of course, for the opponents to make any headway, they'll have to do better before the councilors and the public than they did before the legislature. At Friday's marathon hearing, chaired by State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, foes of the plan weren't heard until the hearing was well under way -- after several hours of supportive testimony from the pols, the team, and business and labor proponents. Gleason, an important figure in the stadium debate, had to leave in the afternoon before he got to testify -- even though MassPIRG's Rob Sargent says opponents signed up the former corporation counsel very early. Sargent himself didn't testify until about 6:30 p.m., even though he claims he was signed up before others who spoke much sooner. (Asked by cell phone late Friday afternoon, when he was still waiting to testify, whether opponents had been treated unfairly, Sargent replied, "No question.")

Indeed, despite the opposition, it's important to remember that the Red Sox have a lot of inside muscle. If Harrington can assemble the team's private financing, an awesome amount of weight will be brought to bear on the city council, which has been a weak body for years.

There are plenty of reasons to view the way this went down as, well, kind of gross. Despite pledges of public process -- only reasonable with a project this big -- last week the state's leaders and Menino basically huddled behind closed doors with Harrington and his corporate advisers (such as Gifford) to decide what would happen. "This is once again a triumph for the oligarchy," quipped analyst Charlie Pierce on WBUR's Only a Game on Saturday. That's about right.

Still, there's time to undo the damage. Councilors can stop the deal. Many say they want to. Whether they will is another question entirely.

Ben Geman can be reached at bgeman[a]phx.com.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 |4 | Back