Intrigue

Ballpark maneuvers

by Dorie Clark

When the Red Sox were negotiating for a new ballpark deal last summer, they schmoozed Boston mayor Tom Menino and top state lawmakers. But when the bill -- which allots $212 million in city funds to the project -- passed the state legislature last July, the heretofore neglected Boston City Council was suddenly in the spotlight, with the power to torpedo the legislation. With seven members publicly opposed to the plan, the Red Sox began a low-key public-relations offensive last month, meeting privately with councilors and "briefing [them] on the many different aspects of the project, ranging from the economics of baseball to why we cannot renovate the existing ballpark," according to team spokeswoman Jodi Matthews.

Two such meetings -- small enough to skirt the requirements of the open-meeting law, which requires that the press be admitted if a majority of councilors are present -- took place at Fenway Park last Thursday. (At one of them, a representative of the Phoenix was turned away at the door and told that the press was not allowed, though Matthews later extended the offer of a private tour of Fenway Park.)

At the briefings, Red Sox officials, including CEO John Harrington, discussed matters such as how the new Fenway site was chosen, what it takes to keep the club financially competitive, and eminent domain. (The current plan would displace the offices of the Boston Phoenix at 126 Brookline Avenue. Visit www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/fenway.html for our past coverage of the issue.) At-large councilor Michael Flaherty and North End councilor Paul Scapicchio -- who are both undecided on whether to support the plan approved by the legislature -- attended the first meeting, and their reports indicate that it was pretty tame. Scapicchio had heard the pitch before: "A lot of it was kind of repetitious," he says. "It was nothing new, a chance to ask questions if you'd like." He says the rumor that the Sox were going to seek additional financial sweeteners from the legislature was not discussed. He adds that the meeting may have been a conciliatory gesture to councilors; they will probably face a vote this spring on the plan. "When [the Red Sox, Menino, and the state legislature] put this deal together, they didn't really include the city council," he says. "Maybe it's their attempt to try to do that."

But the second meeting, with Councilor Chuck Turner and Councilor Maureen Feeney of Dorchester, both of whom oppose the plan, was more eventful. During the two-hour session, Turner says, team officials began by explaining "how much money they were putting in, that it was more than other [cities'] teams had put in." Turner says they then admitted that the deal is "financially impractical." He reports, "They can't get a financing deal because of unlimited liability for the cost of taking the land, and at the same time the council is saying the deal isn't a good one" because it's too generous to the team. "What they're talking about is a strategy to go back to the state legislature to raise surcharges or extend the boundaries of a parking charge," he says. "It sounds like they're thinking of a parking tax in Boston." The Red Sox refused to confirm or deny the report. "We don't think it is appropriate or fair to the councilors to comment on what was a private discussion," says Matthews.

It was reported last week that two prominent business leaders -- Chad Gifford of FleetBoston and advertising executive Jack Connors -- plan to meet with Menino, who backs the current plan for a new ballpark, to urge him to support new financial concessions to the team. The purported demands include a cap of $1 million on annual property taxes and a guarantee that the city -- rather than the team -- would pick up the tab for possible cost overruns on the land-taking and clean-up operations. Menino has voiced skepticism about sweetening the deal.

Councilor Mike Ross, who represents the Fenway and is vehemently opposed to the plan, has not been invited to any briefings. "There seems to be a strategy at work with who they're bringing to the table," he says. "I get very concerned when a bunch of behind-closed-doors meetings start to take place. It seems there's a sort of divide-and-conquer strategy." Matthews of the Red Sox responds, "We have met with seven councilors to date and hope to brief the rest of the members over the next few weeks, as their schedules permit."

The Sox may be feeling bolstered by last week's Philadelphia City Council decision to give $304 million -- $92 million more than is currently at stake in Boston -- to two new professional-sports stadiums, in spite of a visit several weeks ago by Boston city councilors Maura Hennigan and Chuck Turner, who urged them not to approve the funds. Especially in light of talk that the Red Sox plan to seek additional financial benefits, Boston councilors remain skeptical. But the team is clearly hoping that the briefings can sway undecided council members such as Charles Yancey of Mattapan. "At this point, neither the Red Sox nor the administration have been successful in making a case even for the earlier agreement," says Yancey. "Maybe they will in the future, but they haven't at this point."