Boston’s proposal to shift the burden of its property taxes away from homeowners is effectively dead in the Legislature.

Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Middlesex/Norfolk, said in a statement Monday night that she did not intend to bring the home rule petition back to the floor when the Senate reconvenes on Thursday.

With days left for the city to finalize its property tax rates before January bills go out, this means city officials will not have time to rethink and resubmit a new proposal.

“Many in the Senate believe that this proposal tips the scales too far in one direction, with a stalled economic recovery in Boston as an unfortunate potential outcome,” Spilka said.

“My job as Senate President is to work toward compromise, always; without it we would accomplish nothing. It is also my job to listen to the members of the Senate, and I have heard clearly that there currently is not sufficient support for this proposal,” she continued.

Mayor Michelle Wu unveiled the original tax shift proposal in April in response to declining commercial property values in the wake of the pandemic, as fewer people traveled to the office for work.

To avoid homeowners having to make up for that loss on their taxes, she proposed requesting a higher percentage of the tax levy from commercial owners.

Wu wrote in a letter to senators last week that residential property owners would see about a 10.4% increase on their next tax bill, or a 5.2% annual increase, if the home rule petition is passed. Without it, they would see an estimated 21% hike, or a 10.5% annual increase.

The original home rule petition passed the state House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, largely due to concerns from the business and real estate communities that it would hurt commercial property owners at a time when they were already struggling.

Wu met with business groups to draft a second, compromise version of the bill, which passed the City Council in October and the House last month.

She pressed for the bill to be put on a fast track for approval so tax rates could be finalized on time, saying in November that it would need to pass by Dec. 4.

But last week, Sen. Nick Collins, D-1st Suffolk, delayed the Senate vote twice, saying Dec. 2 that he wanted to first see the certified tax valuations.

After those numbers were released publicly, he again delayed the vote on Dec. 5, saying he wanted more time for analysis of the numbers.

Collins and others in the Senate and in the business community claimed the Department of Revenue-certified valuations showed that Wu’s initial estimates of the increase in homeowners’ tax bills were overblown.

Even some of the business groups who had worked on the second, compromise bill backed out at the end of last week, saying the tax shift was unnecessary.

On Monday, Collins pushed the Senate vote a third time, repeating the argument that the bill was not needed.

“Estimates by city officials have been far off the mark,” he said, MassLive previously reported.. “We believe it is fair and prudent to allow the time to digest that data and speak to our constituents, stakeholders and colleagues to determine whether this home-rule is necessary.”

Wu has pushed back on these arguments, saying in her letter to senators last week that the average annual tax increase for a single-family home over the past decade has been about 5%, less than half of the estimate for 2025.

But opponents, including Spilka, said the change could hurt the economic viability of the whole state, not just Boston.

The Senate president said in her statement Monday that while senators were aware of affordability issues and the concerns of homeowners, they had helped pass other legislation to help address those challenges, including the $5.1 billion housing bond bill signed into law in August and a major tax relief package that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

Before Spilka declared her intention not to bring up the bill again Monday night, a city spokesperson released a short statement saying they were “waiting for clarity” on whether it would be brought to a vote.

The city did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday morning.

The Boston Red Sox have to shift their focus now that superstar outfielder Juan Soto has reportedly signed a historic deal with the New York Mets.

Players like slugger Teoscar Hernández and pitchers Max Fried and Corbin Burnes have been rumored to be a few of the Red Sox’s targets. Audacy’s Rob Bradford believes getting a starting pitcher for the top of the rotation should be the Red Sox’s No. 1 priority, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be Fried or Burnes.

“But now what you have is that you have to compete with some of these other teams, including the Blue Jays, by the way, who lost out on Soto, who are in the same desperation that you are to get a Max Fried or Corbin Burnes,” Bradford said on WEEI’s Adam Jones and Rich Keefe on Monday. “… If I’m a team, and I have Zach Gallen for Arizona, I absolutely say, ‘Hey, this isn’t going to cost as much as (Garrett) Crochet. So, Boston Red Sox, you need a starter. Here.’ You go trade for him. I think that there might be a starter out there that they have that we aren’t talking about that they might trade for instead of maybe getting uncomfortable for one of these other guys.”

Gallen had a 14-6 record with a 3.65 ERA across 28 starts with the Diamondbacks in 2024. He surrendered just 13 home runs in 148 innings of work with 156 strikeouts.

Even though Bradford believes the Red Sox need a top of the rotation pitcher, he admitted Alex Bregman wasn’t on his radar before today.

“I did not account for Alex Bregman in the way that maybe I should have accounted for,” Bradford said. “How much they prioritize because right-handed hitter, obviously open to a move to second base, a championship pedigree. … The type of guy that they need in that clubhouse from a position player standpoint. It checks off a lot of boxes.”

Alex Cora obviously believes Bregman would be a good fit in Boston. The Red Sox manager raved about Bregman when he spoke with reporters at the Winter Meetings on Monday.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the district’s new policy “greatly diminish[ed]” the court’s need to review the parent coalition’s case.

“The difficulty, as I see it, is that Boston has replaced the challenged admissions policy,” Gorsuch said in his response to the parents’ petition. “The parents and students do not challenge Boston’s new policy, nor do they suggest that the city is simply biding its time, intent on reviving the old policy.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

BPS’s temporary policy resulted in a significant decrease in the number of white incoming seventh graders who received admissions offers, and a small increase in admissions for Asian American applicants. The number of Black and Latino students admitted to the exam schools rose substantially.

The parent coalition sued BPS in 2021 on behalf of 14 white and Asian applicants. The parents sought to ban BPS from using criteria, such as ZIP codes and socioeconomic factors, as proxies for race in order to admit more Black and Latino students to exam schools at the expense of white and Asian applicants.

The coalition also sought to have five students who were rejected under the temporary plan admitted, arguing they would have been accepted under the old policy.

Chris Kieser, senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the parent coalition, said in a statement the district’s use of students’ ZIP codes to allocate exam school seats violated the Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.

“Every student should have an equal opportunity to succeed based on their merit, not where they live or the color of their skin,” Kieser said. “Regardless of today’s disappointment, the government’s use of skin color or ethnicity to choose who can attend public schools is a critical constitutional question that must be settled.”

In his dissent from the high court’s denial, Alito said the district’s temporary policy was “racial balancing by another name” and “undoubtedly unconstitutional.”

Spokespeople for BPS did not return requests for comment.

The temporary policy was previously upheld by the federal district court in Boston and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Oren Sellstrom, litigation director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, which represented two families who intervened in the lawsuit in support of the plan, said the court’s decision shows school districts should take steps to ensure that educational opportunities are available to all students equally.

“Our schools are stronger when classrooms are diverse and students from a wide range of backgrounds can learn from each other,” he said in a statement.

The justices earlier this year declined to hear a similar case brought by a group of Asian American parents who argued the race-neutral admissions criteria to the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology in Virginia were designed to increase enrollment of Black and Latino students. The policy set aside seats for a portion of students from every middle school.

Last year, the court struck down race-based affirmative action admission policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, said in a statement the Supreme Court’s action sends a clear message that there is “no appetite for extending the affirmative action decision beyond its narrow scope in college admissions.”

Deanna Pan can be reached at deanna.pan@globe.com. Follow her @DDpan.