A lawsuit that alleges the City of Boston is inflating the assessed value, and taxes, for commercial properties that file abatements will be taken up by Suffolk Superior Court on Wednesday.

The alleged practice has been slammed as retaliatory and unlawful by the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation, a watchdog group that filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of a commercial property owner last December. The property is 148 State St., a Seaport office building.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in February, arguing that the case does not qualify as one that should be considered by Superior Court, given that the plaintiff “has an adequate legal remedy at the (state) Appellate Tax Board.”

City Hall attorneys will be asking the court to grant the motion at Wednesday’s 2 p.m. hearing.

“Plaintiff failed to exhaust its mandatory administrative remedies; indeed, plaintiff and the city are involved in a pending administrative action that will address some of the excessive valuation claims raised in its complaint,” the city’s motion states. “Plaintiff chose not to appeal the remaining excessive valuation claims raised in its complaint.

“Contrary to its argument, plaintiff’s claims do not fit into the exceedingly narrow exception that would permit the Superior Court to hear its claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under extraordinary circumstances,” the city’s motion states. “As a result, the court is without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and it must be dismissed as a matter of law.”

The Pioneer New England Legal Foundation filed an opposition to the city’s motion to dismiss last month that argues against what it sees as the “essence” of the the motion, which is that “the court must decline to hear the case because the statutory abatement and Appellate Tax Board process is mandatory and exclusive.”

“Defendant’s framing baldly misstates what the complaint actually pleads and what this action seeks to remedy,” the Pioneer filing states. “Contrary to the premise of the city’s motion, this action is not a routine dispute over the valuation of a single parcel.

“Plaintiff alleges a deliberate, systemwide retaliatory practice: when a taxpayer exercised the right to petition by pursuing an ATB appeal, the city used an add-back or override methodology to inflate the property assessment at issue artificially, and ostensibly to ‘stabilize’ the taxpayer’s value at prior-year levels.

“Similarly-situated taxpayers without ATB appeals did not receive the same treatment. Plaintiff further alleges that this practice is reflected in the city’s own property record cards and operated as a hidden penalty on protected petitioning activity,” the Pioneer filing states.

Pioneer’s attorneys added, “At the pleading stage, those well-plead allegations must be credited as true, and the city cannot obtain dismissal by trying to recast the complaint as nothing more than an ordinary overvaluation claim.”

The lawsuit is seeking restitution, for the city to repay the plaintiff commercial taxpayer, along with others who may join the filing, the amount they were overcharged in property taxes, due to the city’s alleged overvaluation.

Despite reportedly agreeing privately to stop the alleged overassessment practice as part of settlement negotiations, the city has publicly dismissed Pioneer’s allegations as “baseless and full of misinformation,” per a prior statement from Mayor Michelle Wu’s office.

Frank Bailey, Pioneer’s president and a retired judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Massachusetts, has said Pioneer estimates as many as 200 commercial properties have been overtaxed by the city practice.

If the suit is successful, those properties could be owed restitution at a time when the city’s finances are hampered by declining commercial property values tied to vacant office space that one City Hall watchdog has projected may lead to a $1-2 billion budget shortfall over the next five years.

The email is sitting in my inbox like a countdown clock: $5,000 due to secure my surgery date. Another $7,000 required on the day of the procedure. Before even getting there, I had already paid $800 just for a consultation and thousands more from emergency room visits, trying to manage the pain.

As a college student in a single-parent household, these costs are not just overwhelming; they are destabilizing. For my family, this isn’t just a medical decision; it’s a financial crisis that affects bills, groceries, and basic stability. 

This isn’t an unusual story; it’s what accessing healthcare looks like for too many people in Connecticut today. When the cost of care becomes this overwhelming, patients are forced to make impossible choices: delay treatment, go into debt, or simply go without. 

This is why Connecticut lawmakers must pass SB3: An Act Concerning Health Care Affordability. The bill directly addresses one of the most urgent public health issues in our state: the rising cost of healthcare and the barriers it creates for everyday citizens. SB3 is not just a general attempt to “lower costs.” It proposes specific, actionable solutions.

The bill would establish a Connecticut Affordable Health Care Trust Fund to stabilize costs and protect residents from rising premiums, particularly as federal subsidies become uncertain. It also includes a “Connecticut Option” program designed to expand access to more affordable insurance coverage and, in the short term, replace federal premium subsidies for many residents earning up to 600% of the federal poverty level. 

Healthcare affordability is not just an economic issue; it is a public health crisis. According to a report from theKaiser Family Foundation, nearly half of U.S. adults report difficulty affording healthcare, and many delay or skip necessary services as a result. These delays can lead to worsening conditions, more emergency visits, and higher long-term costs for both patients and the healthcare system. In my case, postponing treatment for endometriosis only led to repeated ER visits, each one adding to the financial and physical burden.  

Ella Nocera-DeJulio

Connecticut is not immune to these trends. Reports show that residents across the state, especially those with low and moderate incomes, struggle with high premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs. Even those with insurance often face significant financial barriers when seeking care. This reality contradicts the very purpose of a healthcare system: to provide timely, effective treatment without causing financial harm.

Some critics argue that bills like SB3 could increase government spending or place additional strain on healthcare providers. Others question whether it goes far enough, pointing out gaps in coverage, such as limited inclusion of certain populations. These concerns deserve attention, but they do not outweigh the urgency of the problem. In fact, SB3 is designed as both a short-term solution to stabilize costs and a long-term framework to explore broader reforms.

Passing SB3 would help more than just individual patients. When people can afford regular checkups and early treatment, long-term illnesses are easier to manage, fewer people end up in the emergency room, and healthcare costs go down overall. This leads to healthier communities and a better-functioning healthcare system. In simpler terms, making healthcare more affordable isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s also a smart decision.

My experience is just one example, but it reflects a much larger issue affecting communities across Connecticut. No one should have to delay a necessary surgery or accumulate thousands of dollars in debt just to receive basic medical care. Healthcare shouldn’t be something only available to people who can afford it, but a basic right supported by strong and effective policies.

Connecticut has a real chance to fix a system that is clearly not working for many people. Passing SB3 would help lower costs and make it easier for residents to get the care they need without financial stress. It’s time for lawmakers to take action and make healthcare more affordable and accessible for everyone. 

Ella Nocera-DeJulio is a sophomore at Sacred Heart University, majoring in Health Sciences, concentrating in Occupational Therapy.