Connect with us

Boston, MA

In last-minute maneuver, Boston’s White Stadium opponents seek new ‘legal theory’ to block city’s soccer project

Published

on

In last-minute maneuver, Boston’s White Stadium opponents seek new ‘legal theory’ to block city’s soccer project


With half their case already dismissed, a group of plaintiffs vying to stop the City of Boston’s public-private plan to rehab White Stadium for a pro soccer team made a last-minute motion near the end of trial to try to enhance their legal claims.

The late motion aims to provide a layer of insurance to the plaintiffs’ remaining major claim, by way of a legal theory purportedly backed by state law that gives 10 taxpayers the ability, through the court, to block the type of project the city and Boston Unity Soccer Partners are pursuing with their plan to rebuild the stadium on public parkland.

While 20 neighbors of Franklin Park’s White Stadium joined the Emerald Necklace Conservancy in filing last year’s lawsuit, not all of them were homeowners who pay property taxes. The motion adds to their legal challenge, that the proposed for-profit stadium would illegally privatize protected public land, by ensuring that the plaintiffs include 10 “taxable inhabitants of the City of Boston.”

“Under this statute, this court ‘shall have jurisdiction in equity, upon petition of not less than ten taxable inhabitants of the city or town in which such common or park is located, to restrain the erection of a building on a common or park in violation of this section,’” the motion filed Wednesday by Attorneys Alan Lipkind and Nicholas Allen states.

Advertisement

The motion asserts that the city is violating state statute by erecting a more than 600,000 square-foot building on designated public parkland without legislative approval, and by raising funds for the roughly $200 million project.

That legal argument forms the basis of the plaintiffs’ remaining case, which is that the public-private plan violates Article 97 of the state constitution, which voters approved in 1972 and requires two-thirds approval from the state Legislature for other uses for land and easements taken or acquired for conservation purposes. The city and BUSP deny the privatization claim.

The plaintiffs’ motion “to conform their pleadings to the evidence presented at trial,” drew backlash from attorneys for the City of Boston, who argued that the last-minute legal maneuver should not be allowed by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Matthew Nestor.

An attorney for the city, when the motion was introduced at the trial Wednesday, described it as “extremely prejudicial to us,” given that the plaintiffs were seeking to “add claims in the middle of a trial” that the city’s legal team had not had a chance to review nor prepare evidence for.

Lipkind responded by saying there “no new claims” introduced by the motion.

Advertisement

“It’s just another tool to give the court a legal theory to rely on,” Lipkind said.

A city attorney also sought to convince Nestor to disallow the motion by arguing that it was “futile,” given that the city is only paying for its half of the project, there’s “nothing illegal” about the city spending city funds to build a school building and sports stadium, and Boston Public Schools will retain ownership of White Stadium after it’s rebuilt.

The city’s legal team also argued that the proposed use fits under the “works of beauty and public utility” for Boston residents category that the municipality was authorized to use Franklin Park for, when it was purchased by a public charitable trust in 1947 for the purpose of establishing a stadium there.

The plaintiffs’ half of the case arguing that the trust, the George Robert White Fund, does not allow for “joint undertakings” such as what the city and Boston Unity is proposing, was thrown out by Nestor on the eve of trial Monday.

In this instance, Nestor, who ruled in favor of the city on all pre-trial motions, opted to allow the plaintiffs’ last-minute motion on Wednesday. He had also rejected the city and BUSP’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims a day earlier, allowing the trial to continue.

Advertisement

Nestor said that while it’s “always good to bring claims before” a trial, the law is clear that there’s nothing barring a new claim in a civil case … “even though it’s late, really late.”

“But it’s not too uncommon,” Nestor said. “I will allow the motion.”

The matter came up again at the end of the day’s trial session, when Gary Ronan, an attorney for the city, told Nestor that the city’s legal team needed more time “to address the amended complaint.”

Nestor, who had said earlier that he would allow the defendants the ability to address the amended claim by introducing new evidence or a new witness, said that he wouldn’t allow much more time, given that he was looking to wrap up the trial with closing statements on Thursday.

“You know what the theory is so nothing from here on out should be a surprise,” Nestor said. “If there’s anything in the written amended complaint that creates something different, I’ll certainly reconsider it.”

Advertisement

The second day of trial revolved around the city’s witnesses, two city officials who were involved in what they described as an extensive review and design process for the White Stadium rehab and a BPS athletics official who spoke of how he felt the plan would bring much-needed improvements to the run-down 76-year-old facility.

While Nestor ruled against allowing the plaintiffs’ pre-trial motion to bring forward public drinking concerns with the plan, he opted on Wednesday to allow their attorneys to raise the issue of state statute not allowing alcohol on school property.

Nestor, after a city attorney objected, said the city’s legal team opened that door when questioning a witness about permitted events at the stadium, which BPS owns and would share use of with the  National Women’s Soccer League expansion team.

The city’s contention that its prior classification of Franklin Park as being protected by Article 97 — a key point of contention in the plaintiffs’ case — was due to a mapping mistake by a retired Parks Department employee was raised again during testimony by Interim Parks Commissioner Liza Meyer.

The issue, regarding classification in city open space plans that go back “decades,” was first raised Tuesday in opening statements by the plaintiffs’ and city’s attorneys.

Advertisement

Day 3 of the high-stakes trial, which will determine the fate of the controversial plan championed by Mayor Michelle Wu, will convene at 9 a.m. Thursday. Wu’s opponent in the mayoral race, Josh Kraft, has called for a pause on the project until the litigation is resolved.

Originally Published:



Source link

Boston, MA

Did you follow the local news this week? Take our Greater Boston news quiz.

Published

on

Did you follow the local news this week? Take our Greater Boston news quiz.






Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Boston, MA

Boston nightclub where woman suffered medical emergency and died has license reinstated

Published

on

Boston nightclub where woman suffered medical emergency and died has license reinstated


Local News

After hearing testimony from club representatives and the loved ones of a woman who died there Dec. 21, regulators found no violations.

ICON, a nightclub in Boston’s Theater District, had its entertainment license reinstated at a hearing Thursday. Lane Turner/The Boston Globe

A Boston nightclub where a woman collapsed on the dance floor and died last month will have its entertainment license reinstated after the Boston Licensing Board found no violations Thursday.

Anastaiya Colon, 27, was at ICON, a nightclub in Boston’s Theater District, in the early hours of Dec. 21 when she suffered a fatal medical episode. Following the incident, her loved ones insisted that the club’s staff did not respond professionally and failed to control crowds.

Advertisement

City regulators suspended ICON’s entertainment license pending an assessment of any potential violations. During a hearing Tuesday, they heard from attorneys representing the club and people who were with Colon the night she died.

Anastaiya Colon, 27, suffered a fatal medical episode Dec. 21 while at ICON.
Anastaiya Colon, 27, suffered a fatal medical episode Dec. 21 while at ICON. – GoFundMe

As EMTs attempted to respond, crowds inside the club failed to comply with demands to give them space, prompting police to shut down the club, according to a police report of the incident. However, the club and its representatives were adamant that staff handled their response and crowd control efforts properly.

Kevin Montgomery, the club’s head of security, testified that the crowd did not impede police or EMTs and that he waited to evacuate the club because doing so would have created a bottleneck at the entrance. Additionally, a bouncer and a bartender both testified that they interacted with Colon, who ordered one drink before collapsing, and did not see any signs of intoxication.

Angelica Morales, Colon’s sister, submitted a video taken on her phone to the board for them to review. Morales testified Tuesday that the video disproves some of the board’s claims and shows that ICON did not immediately respond to the emergency.

“I ran to the DJ booth, literally bombarded everybody that was in my way to get to the DJ booth, told them to cut the music off,” Morales said. “On my way back, the music was cut off for a minute or two, maybe less, and they cut the music back on.”

Shanice Monteiro, a friend who was with Colon and Morales, said she went outside to flag down police officers. She testified that their response, along with the crowd’s, was inadequate.

Advertisement

“I struggled to get outside,” Monteiro said. “Once I got outside, everybody was still partying, there was no type of urgency. Nobody stopped.”

These factors, along with video evidence provided by ICON, did not substantiate any violations on the club’s part, prompting the licensing board to reinstate their entertainment license at a subsequent hearing Thursday.

“Based on the evidence presented at the hearing from the licensed premise and the spoken testimony and video evidence shared with us from Ms. Colon’s family, I’m not able to find a violation in this case,” Kathleen Joyce, the board’s chairwoman, said at the hearing.

However, Joyce further stated that she “was not able to resolve certain questions” about exactly when or why the club turned off the music or turned on the lights. As a result, the board will require ICON to submit an emergency management plan to prevent future incidents and put organized safety measures in place.

“This plan should outline detailed operational procedures in the event of a medical or any other emergency, including protocols for police and ambulance notification, crowd control and dispersal, and procedures regarding lighting and music during an emergency response,” Joyce said.

Advertisement

Though the club will reopen without facing any violations, Joyce noted that there were “lessons left to be learned” from the incident.

“This tragedy has shaken the public confidence in nightlife in this area, and restoring that confidence is a shared obligation,” she said. “People should feel safe going out at night. They should feel safe going to a club in this area, and they should feel safe getting home.”

Keeana Saxon, one of three commissioners on the licensing board, further emphasized the distinction Joyce made between entertainment-related matters and those that pertained to licensing. Essentially, the deciding factor in the board’s decision was the separation of the club’s response from any accountability they may have had by serving Colon liquor.

“I hope that the family does understand that there are separate procedures for both the entertainment and the licensing, just to make sure that on the licensing side, that we understand that she was only served one drink and that it was absolutely unforeseeable for that one drink to then lead to some kind of emergency such as this one,” Saxon said.





Source link

Continue Reading

Boston, MA

Battenfeld: Michelle Wu should demand better security after Boston Medical Center rape

Published

on

Battenfeld: Michelle Wu should demand better security after Boston Medical Center rape


In the middle of Michelle Wu’s orchestrated inaugural celebration, prosecutors described a senseless hospital horror that unfolded at Boston Medical Center – a rape of a partially paralyzed patient allegedly by a mentally ill man allowed to freely roam the hospital’s hallways.

It happened in September in what is supposed to be a safe haven but too often is a dangerous campus. Drug addicts with needles frequently openly camp in front of the hospital, and in early December a security guard suffered serious injuries in a stabbing on the BMC campus. The alleged assailant was finally subdued by other security guards after a struggle.

In the September incident, prosecutors described in court this week how the 55-year-old alleged rapist Barry Howze worked his way under the terrified victim’s bed in the BMC emergency room and sexually assaulted her.

“This assault was brutal and brazen, and occurred in a place where people go for help,” Suffolk County prosecutor Kate Fraiman said. “Due to her partial paralysis, she could not reach her phone, which was under her body at the time.”

Advertisement

Howze, who reportedly has a history of violent offenses and mental illness, was able to flee the scene but was arrested two days later at the hospital when he tried to obtain a visitor’s pass and was recognized by security. Howze’s attorney blamed hospital staff for allowing him the opportunity to commit the crime and some city councilors are demanding answers.

“This was a horrific and violent sexual assault on a defenseless patient,” Councilor Ed Flynn said. “The safety and security of patients and staff at the hospital can’t be ignored any longer. The hospital leadership must make immediate and major changes and upgrades to their security department.”

Flynn also sent a letter to BMC CEO Alastair Bell questioning how the assailant was allowed to commit the rape.

Where is Wu? She was too busy celebrating herself with a weeklong inaugural of her second term to deal with the rape at the medical center, which is near the center of drug-ravaged Mass and Cass.

If the rape had happened at a suburban hospital, people would be demanding investigations and accountability.

Advertisement

But in Boston, Wu takes credit for running the “safest major city in the country” while often ignoring crimes.

Wu should intervene and demand better security and safety for the staff and patients at BMC.

Although the hospital is no longer run by the city, it has a historic connection with City Hall. It is used by Boston residents, many of them poor and disabled or from marginalized communities. She should be out front like Flynn demanding accountability from the hospital.

Boston Medical Center, located in the city’s South End, is the largest “safety-net” hospital in New England. It is partially overseen by the Boston Public Health Commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor.

BMC was formed in 1996 by the Thomas Menino administration as a merger between the city-owned Boston City Hospital, which first opened in 1864, and Boston University Medical Center.

Advertisement

Menino called the merger “the most important thing I will do as mayor.”

When he was appointed CEO by the hospital board of trustees in 2023, Bell offered recycled Wu-speak to talk about how BMC was trying to “reshape” how the hospital delivers health care.

“The way we think about the health of our patients and members extends beyond traditional medicine to environmental sustainability and issues such as housing, food insecurity, and economic mobility, as we study the root causes of health inequities and empower all of our patients and communities to thrive,” Bell said.

But the hospital has been plagued by security issues in the last few years, and a contract dispute with the nurses’ union. The nurses at BMC’s Brighton campus authorized a three-day strike late last year over management demands to cut staffing and retirement benefits.

Kirsten Ransom, BMC Brighton RN and Massachusetts Nurses Association co-chair, said, “This vote sends a clear message that our members are united in our commitment to make a stand for our patients, our community and our professional integrity in the wake of this blatant effort to balance BMC’s budget on the backs of those who have the greatest impact on the safety of the patients and the future success of this facility.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending