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.
Boston Bruins (30-32-9, in the Atlantic Division) vs. Los Angeles Kings (38-21-9, in the Pacific Division)
Los Angeles; Sunday, 9 p.m. EDT
Advertisement
BETMGM SPORTSBOOK LINE: Kings -236, Bruins +194; over/under is 5.5
BOTTOM LINE: The Boston Bruins head into the matchup against the Los Angeles Kings after losing five games in a row.
Los Angeles is 24-3-4 in home games and 38-21-9 overall. The Kings have a +23 scoring differential, with 195 total goals scored and 172 given up.
Boston is 30-32-9 overall and 11-20-3 on the road. The Bruins serve 10.2 penalty minutes per game to rank second in league play.
Sunday’s game is the second time these teams match up this season. The Bruins won 2-1 in overtime in the previous matchup.
Advertisement
TOP PERFORMERS: Warren Foegele has scored 19 goals with 19 assists for the Kings. Quinton Byfield has seven goals and one assist over the last 10 games.
David Pastrnak has 34 goals and 50 assists for the Bruins. Morgan Geekie has scored five goals with one assist over the past 10 games.
LAST 10 GAMES: Kings: 7-2-1, averaging three goals, 4.8 assists, 3.6 penalties and 7.5 penalty minutes while giving up 1.8 goals per game.
Bruins: 2-7-1, averaging 2.1 goals, 3.3 assists, three penalties and 7.5 penalty minutes while giving up three goals per game.
INJURIES: Kings: None listed.
Advertisement
Bruins: None listed.
___
The Associated Press created this story using technology provided by Data Skrive and data from Sportradar.
The Boston City Council is considering hitting companies like DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats with a new delivery tax on food orders as part of a city crackdown on their unruly drivers, but critics say consumers and restaurants will pay the price.
The Council is discussing a potential amendment to a “road safety and accountability for delivery providers ordinance” proposed by the mayor that would tack on a 15-cent delivery fee per order for national third-party food delivery companies that operate in Boston.
The potential new fee has proven to be contentious thus far.
The Massachusetts Restaurant Association sent a letter to the mayor and City Council outlining its opposition, but the councilor behind the idea says it’s a key approach to ensuring enforcement of the proposed ordinance, which aims to crack down on food-app delivery drivers who flout traffic rules.
Advertisement
“The 15-cent delivery fee is a necessary step to address the increased strain delivery traffic places on our streets,” Councilor Sharon Durkan, who proposed the fee amendment, said in a statement to the Herald. “This fee ensures we can effectively implement the ordinance and acknowledge the real costs these services impose on Boston.”
Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata, who chairs the subcommittee that has held hearings on the mayor’s proposed ordinance, said the new tax is “currently on the table as a possible addition” to the measure, which needs Council approval.
“It would theoretically be a 15-cent per order fee that would help cover costs of the enforcement of the ordinance,” Coletta Zapata told the Herald.
Stephen Clark, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, sent letters to Mayor Michelle Wu and the 13 city councilors last Thursday with the group’s concerns about the fee, which had been discussed that morning by the Council as part of a working session it held to tweak the ordinance.
“This will make delivery more expensive in the city and discourages consumers from ordering and doing business with restaurants in Boston,” Clark wrote.
Advertisement
“During a time when our attorney general is looking to limit additional fees and surcharges, it does not seem like the government should be adding new fees to Boston residents,” his letter states.
Clark’s letter also lists a number of concerns the Restaurant Association has with the mayor’s ordinance, which it says will lead to “rising delivery costs” and “increased red tape” and pose a “threat to restaurant and consumer privacy” through its data-sharing requirements.
“The proposed ordinance,” Clark wrote, “is intended to alleviate traffic congestion, but enforcing existing regulations will have a far greater impact. This proposed ordinance … does little to help the problem at hand and will only hurt our small local businesses and consumers who rely on third-party deliveries.”
In a phone interview, Clark clarified that the Restaurant Association is not necessarily opposed to the ordinance as proposed by the mayor. He said the group is open to “commonsense regulations going into effect” and conversations with city officials to tweak the measure’s language to address its concerns.
The Restaurant Association is staunchly opposed, however, to the potential new delivery fee being discussed by the City Council, Clark said.
Advertisement
“I wasn’t bashing the mayor,” Clark said. “I should have just CC’d the mayor. We were writing it to the City Council because they’ve had multiple working sessions on this, and the fee has originated from the City Council, not the mayor.”
Wu’s office said “the mayor did not include any fee or tax on restaurant orders in the original ordinance filed.”
The city has been in close conversation with the delivery companies and advocates to protect consumer privacy, the mayor’s office said.
“This ordinance holds large, national delivery companies accountable and will ensure drivers have insurance coverage while making our streets safer for everyone,” a Wu spokesperson said in a statement.
“Data gathered will help the city better plan for food delivery impacts, which has resulted in an alarming increase of dangerous driving, worsened congestion and double parking — all negatively impacting resident experiences and business operations.”
Advertisement
“We are optimistic that the final bill will earn broad support from neighborhood residents and businesses,” the Wu spokesperson said.
Coletta Zapata said the Council would have to take action on the mayor’s ordinance, and any potential amendments including the new fee, by the first week of April to comply with the 60-day order.
If the Council chooses to take no action, it would go into effect, with the language proposed by the mayor. A vote would have to be taken at the next weekly meeting, on April 2.
“Although I support much of the proposed ordinance, I will vote against it based on a new tax that will ultimately be passed on to restaurants and the public,” Councilor Ed Flynn said in a statement to the Herald. “It’s not the time for a new tax in Boston. We must demonstrate fiscal discipline and responsibility.”
Per the language of the amendment, the Boston Transportation Department “may periodically review and adjust the delivery fee, subject to a review and approval by the City Council, to ensure it remains effective.”
Advertisement
Durkan acknowledged that there’s a “clear debate about who bears these costs,” but said the “hearing really illuminated the Council’s commitment to exploring all avenues to prevent these fees from being passed onto local businesses or delivery drivers.”
“We should ensure a fair and balanced approach that holds third-party delivery companies accountable while protecting our local economy,” Durkan said.
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said he wasn’t buying it.
“Some Boston city councilors have never seen a tax or fee they don’t like,” Craney told the Herald. “In this case, they want to nickel and dime consumers which will only increase the price of food.
“City councilors who favor this have completely lost their bearing,” he added. “Elected officials should not be justifying any taxes or fees that will drive up the cost of food.”
With colder-than-average temperatures this winter, skyrocketing energy prices have been top of mind for many Bostonians, including Mayor Michelle Wu, who addressed the squeeze felt by consumers in her Wednesday State of the City address.
“Household budgets are strained by higher energy bills,” she said. “If your home isn’t well insulated, you are spending too much to keep warm.”
But just how expensive are energy costs in Boston? Federal data tracking average prices across the nation show that Boston metro’s prices are much higher than the national average.
The average electricity price in the Boston metro area was 31 cents per kilowatt-hour in December 2024, the most recent data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.That was about 73 percent higher than the national average of 18 cents. Natural gas prices were around 65 percent more expensive than the national average, while gasoline prices were roughly even.
Advertisement
These numbers come from the federal statistics bureau’s Consumer Price Index, which uses surveys and other data sources to calculate average prices change over time.
There are many factors that explain why energy costs are so high in the city and state compared to much of the rest of the nation. One factor is that Massachusetts relies on oil and gas pipelines from other states and Canada, which are vulnerable to price jumps. It also consumes a lot more energy than it is able to generate on its own.
The age of Boston’s energy system also makes keeping cost down difficult, said Belleh Fontem, assistant professor of operations management at UMass Lowell.
Old systems and equipment waste more heat, are often more likely to break, and are less able to adapt to sudden changes in temperature, Fontem and others said. There have been some efforts by the state to modernize the aging energy system. But it takes time to adjust such a complex grid, and moving too quickly could cause energy companies to pass increased costs onto consumers, Fontem said.
The city’s cold winter climate also puts a major strain on the energy system, which can lead to an overall increase in prices, said Harvey Michaels, a lecturer in energy management innovation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This winter was also colder than average, so more people have been cranking up the heat to stay warm.
Advertisement
Because winter temperatures in Boston can dip so low, the city has intentionally built a vast but costly energy system capable of supplying heat during those cold dips, Michaels explained. Although the whole system isn’t typically used in warmer months, it still costs a lot of money in upkeep.
“It’s like having a fleet of planes flying around with very few passengers on them,” he said. “It’s going to be very expensive for the passengers that do fly” to make it worth it.
Boston, along with the rest of New England, also relies more heavily on natural gas imported from Canada than most of the US.
If trade relations between the two countries continue to sour, and more tariffs are imposed on energy, prices are very likely to climb in Boston and across New England, experts say.
Advertisement
Scooty Nickerson can be reached at scooty.nickerson@globe.com.
