White Stadium: Passion aside, we all need to make the city of Boston accountable to the law!
Rodney Singleton
The controversy over privatizing White Stadium in Franklin Park, while front and center, all over the news, and in our minds, is still fundamentally not well understood by the wider Boston constituency.
Passions aside for a rigged RFP process that took place behind closed doors, void any inkling of community engagement, with an end game tailored request for only one expected response, one bid and one outcome: the privatization of woefully neglected public parklands in Black and brown Boston for wealthy, monied interest to turn a profit:
www.bostonherald.com/2025/02/26/editorial-wus-white-stadium-deal-gets-a-black-mark-for-transparency/
www.bostonglobe.com/2025/02/25/sports/white-stadium-boston-rfp-process/
Passions aside for a development process that ticked the community engagement process box for a plethora of meaningless community meeting when the cake was already baked, and no level of community input could ever alter the intended city recipe:
www.boston.gov/departments/schools/white-stadium-community-engagement-process
Passions aside for mayor Wu recently supporting communities around a Kraft proposed soccer stadium in Everett when ironically Wu is proposing a similar soccer deal at White Stadium, but not supporting impacted communities – hypocrisy makes for deep and treacherous waters in an election year:
www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/12/business/wu-kraft-everett-soccer-stadium-negotiations-charlestown/
Passions aside for a White Stadium demolition start so close MLK day and lead-in to Black history month – Really?!!!
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/01/19/sports/white-stadium-construction-city-council/
Passions aside for preservation that would have rightly explored alternatives that got in the way of profit and ended with clear statements of what the consequences would be if you didn’t fall in line:
www.dotnews.com/2024/wu-fires-chief-city-s-landmarks-panel
Passions aside, privatizing White Stadium serves as a sobering reminder of Boston’s systemic, institutional racist past, akin to Urban Renewal and court-ordered desegregation of BPS, all rolled into one:
www.baystatebanner.com/2024/08/01/white-stadium-a-threat-to-justice-everywhere/
www.dotnews.com/2024/mayor-wu-s-reforms-planning-fall-far-short-campaign-promises/
Putting all passion aside, the privatization of White Stadium, a public green and open space meant to serve all of Boston since the grounds were acquired by eminent domain in 1875, is all of Boston’s core focus.
But passions aside, what does the law say? Under Article 97 (see below), all of Franklin Park, White Stadium included, is protected land. This is the crux of the pending legal action against the city of Boston by the Emerald Necklace Conservancy and the Franklin Park Defenders. Bottom line: Franklin Park and White Stadium are protected by law!
We all support green and open spaces and when these spaces are threatened, we act to preserve and keep them whole.
Legally, Franklin Park and White Stadium are protected by Article 97, which demands the following to happen before any lease agreement with any entity could ever be entered into:
- A two-thirds vote of both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature (House and Senate).
- Compliance with environmental review procedures under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
- An evaluation to demonstrate that there are no feasible alternatives to the land use change.
- In many cases, a requirement that replacement land of equal or greater environmental and recreational value be provided.
None of these boxes have been ticked by the city of Boston because they argue none of it applies to their plans. Or perhaps none of the above applies because the above requires thoughtful consideration of alternatives to the for-profit privatization plan that was hatched behind closed doors, out of sight of public critique?
Passion aside, we all need to make the city of Boston accountable to the law!
Article 97, and how it applies to the privatization of White Stadium is on trial today at 9:00am, courtroom 304, Suffolk Superior Court, 3 Pemberton Square, Boston MA 02108 – fill the courtroom with your support for public green spaces.
Sign on to the statement of principles
Support Franklin Park and White Stadium Advocacy
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution: Environmental Protection Law
Overview:
Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution was adopted in 1972
and provides strong legal protections for publicly owned lands designated for
conservation, recreation, or natural resource purposes. It establishes the
public's right to a clean environment and ensures that certain lands cannot be
repurposed without a legislative process.
Key Provisions of Article 97
- Public Rights
to Environmental Protection
Article 97 declares that:
“The people shall have the right to clean air and water, freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise, and the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic qualities of their environment; and the protection of the people in their right to the conservation, development, and utilization of the agricultural, mineral, forest, water, air, and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a public purpose.”
- Land Protection and Conservation
- Any publicly owned land acquired for conservation, open space, recreation, or natural resource purposes is protected under Article 97.
- This includes state, municipal, and county lands designated for parks, forests, wetlands, water supplies, and wildlife protection.
- Restrictions on the Disposition or Change of Use of Protected Lands
- If a government agency or municipality wants to sell, lease, or repurpose Article 97 land for any use inconsistent with its original conservation purpose, it must go through a rigorous legal process.
- This process requires:
- A two-thirds vote of both chambers of the Massachusetts Legislature (House and Senate).
- Compliance with environmental review procedures under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
- An evaluation to demonstrate that there are no feasible alternatives to the land use change.
- In many cases, a requirement that replacement land of equal or greater environmental and recreational value be provided.
Application of Article 97
Article 97 applies broadly to a variety of publicly owned lands, including:
- State parks and forests
- Municipal parks and playgrounds
- Public conservation lands
- Water supply protection areas
- Agricultural preservation land
Process for Disposing of or Changing the Use of Article 97 Lands
If a public entity wishes to remove land from Article 97 protection, the following steps typically apply:
- Demonstration of Need
- The entity seeking the change must show that no feasible alternatives exist.
- Public Review and Local Approval
- Most proposals require approval from the local city or town government before moving forward.
- Legislative Process (Two-Thirds Vote)
- The Massachusetts Legislature must approve the disposition of Article 97 land by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.
- Environmental Review
- The project must comply with the MEPA review process.
- Replacement Land (If Required)
- Typically, the entity must provide substitute land of equal or greater environmental and recreational value.
Rodney Singleton
The efforts to bring professional woman’s soccer to Boston is pitting Mayor Michelle Wu against the Krafts of New England Patriots fame.
By Joe Drape
Reporting from Boston
For nearly 50 years, the ramshackle White Stadium in Frederick Law Olmsted’s Franklin Park in Boston has been a monument to neglect. The peeling paint and potholed track a testament to a neighborhood long victimized by the city’s politics of race.
Now, this stadium may finally be getting a second life as the home of one of the National Women’s Soccer League’s newest franchises.
But in sports-crazed Boston, not everyone is happy.
The proposal to renovate White Stadium is now at the heart of a legal challenge playing out in Suffolk County Superior Court. It is also the focus of a political dispute among the families atop Boston’s glittering sports franchises.
The stadium battle has landed in the city’s mayoral race, in the form of a candidate, Josh Kraft, the son of Robert, the owner of the New England Patriots. Josh Kraft is against the proposal for the city to split the $191 million renovation cost with the owners of the new women’s soccer team, a group called Boston Unity Soccer Partners.
Advertisement
“You have all the ingredients for what makes Boston Boston — sports, politics, intrigue and all involving some well-known families,” said Paul Scapicchio, a former member of the City Council.
The stakes are high. The soccer team’s expansion rights can be revoked if it doesn’t have a FIFA-level venue ready by next spring. (The team has not decided on an official name yet.)
“As Boston Unity Soccer Partners continues our long-overdue revitalization of White Stadium,” the team said in a statement ahead of the trial, which is expected to wrap up this week, “our team is thrilled to bring professional women’s soccer to Boston and to collaborate with the city of Boston on enriching the community through our joint renovation of a beloved neighborhood landmark.”
It all started civic-minded enough (and at a far lower price tag, of $50 million) when Boston Unity Soccer Partners approached Mayor Michelle Wu in 2023 with a plan for a renovation of the 10,000-seat White Stadium, which is owned by the city and used for public school athletic events.
Boston Unity Soccer Partners, the women-led group that owns the city’s new women’s soccer team, is a who’s who of prominent Boston business executives.
Advertisement
Its controlling owner, Jennifer Epstein, is a co-owner of the Boston Celtics. Linda Henry, the chief executive of The Boston Globe and wife of John Henry, the Red Sox owner, was also part of the group until she left amid the mounting outcry. (In another twist of Boston sports and big money, it was reported on Thursday that the Celtics are being sold to a new owner, though the deal still needs to be approved by the league.)
The deal offered for the soccer stadium was straightforward. In return for paying half of the renovation costs, the group would take a long-term lease for 20 games and 20 practices a year, as well as a share of profits from tickets, advertising and concessions with the city. Boston Public School students could use the rehabilitated stadium the rest of the time.
Before long, the proposal had the mayor’s backing.
“I’m a mom, my kids are in the Boston public schools, and I’m in schools every week — our facilities are failing them,” Mayor Wu said in an interview. “This is the only facility for student-athletes, and it has been crumbling for 40 years. Our students deserve a complex that matches all they are pouring into their growth and development.”
The stadium, built in 1947, has long been an eyesore and a source of exasperation in this working-class neighborhood. After holding more than 60 public meetings, the city won the support for the proposed renovation deal from many public-school parents and more than 40 youth sports organizations.
Advertisement
For others, however, the thought of using nearly $100 million of taxpayer money so some of Boston’s wealthiest movers and shakers could build a stadium for a professional soccer team, complete with luxury suites and a beer garden, was too much. The opposition goes beyond snarled traffic and thousands of people streaming through their yards and sidewalks.
“This is parkland in a Black and brown neighborhood, and you have a money grab by some of the city’s most powerful people,” said Rodney Singleton, a local resident and one of the plaintiffs who have sued to block the deal. “They wouldn’t try to do this in Boston Common.”
Karen Mauney-Brodek, the president of the Emerald Necklace Conservancy, an advocacy group for Boston’s 1,100 acres of parkland, said many in the community felt bullied by Mayor Wu’s push to do the stadium deal and The Boston Globe’s encouragement to do so from its editorial page.
Last month, Linda Henry announced she was exiting the investor group. Through a spokeswoman, she declined to say why. Many in the opposition have accused The Globe of cheerleading for the soccer team. The newspaper’s rival, The Boston Herald, is against the stadium deal and has frequently pointed out Ms. Henry’s early involvement.
Advertisement
When the parks conservancy suggested a far less costly renovation — $30 million — that balanced the needs of students and maintained the character of the park, Ms. Mauney-Brodek said the city was not interested. The conservancy’s proposal did not include plans for the professional soccer team to play there.
“This is not about economics of sports but about a community’s self-determination,” she said. “It’s been this take-it-or-leave-it offer. It’s not considerate or thoughtful. These parks are essential.”
The conservancy found an ally last month when Josh Kraft announced he was entering the mayor’s race. He is new to politics but is hardly unknown. He worked at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston for 30 years and served as the group’s president.
“The communities around Franklin Park and the people of Boston are not on board with Mayor Wu’s plan to pour $100 million, or possibly more, in public money into a project that primarily benefits a private commercial interest,” Mr. Kraft said in a statement. “To race ahead in this moment in the face of so many legitimate community concerns is a complete and total failure of leadership.”
Advertisement
This being Boston, Mayor Wu is in a standoff over a second soccer stadium. And this dispute also involves the Krafts.
The Kraft Group wants to build a stand-alone, 25,000-seat stadium in neighboring Everett, Mass., for the Major League Soccer team it owns, the New England Revolution. To help clear the way for that stadium, the state Legislature removed the “Designated Port Area” for a 43-acre parcel on the Mystic River, where the facility would be built near the Encore Boston Harbor resort and casino.
Since the Everett site is adjacent to Boston, the Krafts need to strike a community mitigation agreement with the city over issues like traffic and environmental concerns. The Kraft Group has offered to pay the city $750,000, far below the $68 million that Wynn Resorts paid the city in its community mitigation deal to build its casino.
“That’s not even a starting point,” Mayor Wu said.
The Kraft Group declined to comment on the negotiations. If a deal is not struck between parties by May 1, a mediator would need to get involved.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, the demolition of White Stadium has already started across town. Beth Santos and Dorothy Fennell have rallied public school parents and students to back the proposed renovation. Both live in the neighborhood. Ms. Santos owns the nearby Ula Cafe.
They said a makeover for White Stadium is long overdue.
“There is a persistent and noisy group that wants things to stay as they are,” Ms. Santos said. “This is an opportunity to invest in our neighborhood, to give our kids and community something to be proud of. That park has been ignored for 50 years.”
Joe Drape is a Times reporter writing about how the intersection of money, power and sports impacts our culture.