A trial that will decide the fate of the City of Boston’s $200 million public-private plan to rehab White Stadium for a pro soccer team ended with closing arguments focused on the plaintiffs’ main claim that the use will privatize protected parkland.
Attorneys for the defendants, the City of Boston and Boston Unity Soccer Partners, and the plaintiffs, Emerald Necklace Conservancy and 20 park neighbors, used their final moments of this week’s trial summarizing their respective positions around whether the proposed project violates Article 97 of the state Constitution.
Ahead of those closing statements on Thursday, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Matthew Nestor referenced the significant community engagement around the city and Boston Unity’s plan to rehab the stadium, saying the public dynamic he’s witnessed while presiding over the three-day trial has been unusual.
“I’ve seen that there’s people on both sides of this issue,” Nestor said. “It’s not the usual — I don’t know how to describe it. You don’t hate each other, which is great because no matter what happens in this case, the neighborhood’s going to go forward in one fashion or another and you’re all going to be neighbors and friends.”
Nestor ruled in favor of the city on all pre-trial motions, effectively dismissing half of the plaintiffs’ case. His prior ruling threw out one of the plaintiffs’ major claims, but left an avenue for their attorneys to try to prove the other at this week’s trial, which is that the proposed plan violates Article 97 of the state constitution.
Article 97, approved by voters in 1972, 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. They have argued that the city and Boston Public Schools would maintain ownership of Franklin Park’s White Stadium through a lease agreement, which would see the new National Women’s Soccer League team, as tenants, share use of the facility with BPS student-athletes.
Gary Ronan, an attorney for the city, said during his closing arguments that the proposal does not constitute a new use for the portion of relevant parkland, in that the public-private plan is for an existing stadium to be rebuilt.
“There is no case in the Commonwealth… where the court has found something like a giant sports stadium is protected by Article 97,” Ronan said. “All that’s happening now is a reconstruction of White Stadium. The existing facility was already approved by the General Court.”
Alan Lipkind, an attorney for the plaintiffs, disagreed.
“This is putting a $200 million sports and entertainment complex in what’s supposed to be a schoolboy stadium,” Lipkind said. “You have to go through land that’s protected by Article 97 to get there.”
Lipkind, in his closing statements, also seemed to introduce a new argument, which is that the city’s lease agreement tries to solve the issue of there being limited public access to the stadium, by providing the soccer team with a license for pedestrian and vehicular use through portions of Franklin Park.
He argued that the city’s use of the word “license” was disingenuous, when the proper term that should be used is “easement,” which he said would require approval from the state Legislature as it relates to Article 97 protections.
“To me, it’s a real-world smell test,” Lipkind said. “No one in the real world puts $200 million into this project and plans to get there through a revocable license … It’s nothing but an attempt to deceive from the true intent of the parties.”
Nestor said he would take the case under advisement and make a decision within the next two weeks.
