Arrest this development

The Pritzkers want to build too much, too high on the Boston waterfront. Plus, what's at stake on November 7.

There's no question that the Pritzker family's plan to develop the waterfront must be scaled back. It violates Chapter 91, a state law rooted in common law and dating back at least as far as Colonial times, which states that the waterways of the Commonwealth must be kept open to the public.

Chapter 91 also states that waterfront development must serve a "proper public purpose." Development that is water-dependent (ferries, shipyards, and other marine-industry projects) is usually classified as having met this burden. Non-water-dependent development can take place, but it has to meet certain standards in order to get the "public purpose" sign-off. For one, private benefits of the development must be "incidental" to the public purpose -- in other words, the Pritzkers must put those public walkways ahead of their private profit. And the benefits the public gains from the development must outweigh any detriments. That means you can't develop the waterfront and then wall it off from the public. After all, taxpayers have already invested billions in cleaning up Boston Harbor. Why should those who can shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for a waterfront condo reap the primary benefit?

Obviously, one of the crucial issues here is how we -- as a society -- enforce the public-purpose standard. Over the years, holding developers to this standard has come to involve aiding those private parties with big bucks in public money. Look at the help offered to the Red Sox by the city and state.

Should the city do the same for the Pritzker project? Mark Maloney, head of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, says that Boston will not foot the bill for the infrastructure costs (building sidewalks and streets, for example) faced by the Pritzkers in order to make it more financially feasible for them to scale back their plan. "Maybe in an ideal world we could pay," Maloney says. But the city has other pressing needs, such as "education and housing." (Not to mention the $212 million it's agreed to pay towards the Sox' new stadium.)

The city is right not to pay to build out the infrastructure of the waterfront so the Pritzkers can reap profits on their hotels, luxury condos, and shops. But the city is wrong not to hold the line on unreasonable development. The Pritzkers own some prized property along the waterfront. Unfortunately for them, it comes with strings attached. If they aren't willing to build a plan that meets the standards of Chapter 91, they should sell. There are plenty of other developers out there who would be happy to build on the waterfront -- and adhere to the law.

It will make a difference

The presidential election takes place less than two weeks from now, on November 7. You wouldn't know it from the hollow debate both major-party candidates have waged over prescription drugs for seniors, Social Security for seniors (even though Social Security is there for all disabled workers -- some of whom are under 65), and Medicare for seniors -- but there are important issues at stake in this election for all of us.

The most important of these is the Supreme Court. The next president will most certainly appoint two and, might possibly appoint four, Supreme Court justices. Right now, the court has a solid block of three conservative justices: William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist, 76, and the more moderate John Paul Stevens, 80, are expected to retire in the next four years. It is crucial that a liberal be in charge of appointing their replacements. It becomes even more urgent if more justices -- possibly Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor, both of whom have endured bouts with cancer -- also step down.

The court will be making crucial decisions in coming years on gay rights, abortion, free speech on the Internet, privacy, and biotechnology. Who do you want making these decisions? People like Antonin Scalia or people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Although it's become fashionable to say there is little difference between the major-party presidential candidates, that's naive. Much is at stake November 7. Make sure you vote.

Watch this space next week for our presidential and local endorsements.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.