Invoking Rule 15, shutting down a resolution calling for discussion of a fully public alternative White Stadium plan does not serve the community!!!

[Rodney Singleton]

Dear Councilor Ruthzee Louijeane,

 

As Council President, you have twice voted in favor of more transparency, equity and accountability around the controversial White Stadium renovation planned for Franklin Park. Please explain, therefore, why you invoked Rule 15 to shut down a resolution calling for discussion of a fully public alternative stadium plan.

 

Rule 15, as we understand it, authorizes Council President to restrict resolutions concerning the same or similar subjects already on the agenda from being filed a second time. However, Boston City Council has never discussed, reviewed or considered any alternative plan for White Stadium other than the Mayor’s own hugely costly, private soccer league design.

 

What the Council has heard are the many other concerns associated with this troubling project: the lack of environmental review, the lack of regular and fair procurement practices used in partnering with Boston Legacy Football Club, and the social and environmental threat posed by an 11,000 seat stadium.

 

Construction on the new stadium has yet to begin, so there is still time to consider a better way forward. Today, there is a viable alternative plan for a 5,000 seat White Stadium, one that provides fully public use by all Boston student athletes and for community activities at a reasonable cost. To ignore this alternative is to abandon your responsibility to serve the residents of the City of Boston.

 

As supporters of the Franklin Park Defenders, the Emerald Necklace Conservancy and the NAACP, we will continue to advocate for a healthier, more equitable and affordable solution, one that does justice to the legacy of Franklin Park and meets the real needs of the citizens of Boston.

 

We hope that you will support us, once again, in that effort.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Beth & Jerry Abelow, Jamaica Plain

Caliga, Jamaica Plain

Marti Glynn, Dorchester

Melissa Maybee Hamel, Jamaica Plain

Peter Keating, Weston

Kate Phelps, Roxbury

Rodney Singleton, Roxbury

Sarah Freeman, Jamaica Plain

José Soares, Roxbury

[Rodney Singleton]

Angela is right: silence and scattered voices have too often allowed us to be railroaded in Boston. But White Stadium is too important — and too symbolic — for us to remain quiet.

I was born and raised in Roxbury. For 64 years, I have seen how this city treats Black and Brown neighborhoods when it comes to public investment. In the 1960s, urban renewal took my family’s home. In the 1970s, federal courts had to order Boston to desegregate its schools, because “separate but equal” was not equal under the Constitution. In the early 2000s, I sat with neighbors and engaged with the Roxbury Strategic Master Plan Oversight Committee on the Bartlett Yard Project Review Committee, where community input shaped real development because the community demanded it.

That tradition of community-driven planning is being dismantled before our eyes. The Wu administration is moving forward with a privatization scheme at White Stadium that was negotiated behind closed doors, before an RFP was even posted, to serve the interests of private investors — including billionaires with stakes in women’s soccer that would profit. And while Boston’s whiter, wealthier neighborhoods enjoy fully public maintenance of the Boston Common or the Public Garden, Black and Brown neighborhoods are told their parks can only be sustained through privatization.

That’s not just bad policy. It’s the recycling of a racist trope — that Black communities are incapable of sustaining public spaces without authoritarian control and strings attached. It creates a separate-and-unequal standard for civic life in Boston, echoing the very logic the courts struck down in our schools fifty years ago. Equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment applies to parks just as it applies to classrooms.

City Councillor Julia Mejia and the Boston Branch of the NAACP understand this. Their resolution calls for a review of a fully public alternative to the $100 million corporate plan — a 5,000-seat stadium for student-athletes and community use, at half the cost. The NAACP is clear: Boston deserves transparency in costs, equity in procurement, and above all, a commitment to the public good.

And yet when a resolution was filed to discuss this public alternative, City Council President Ruthzee Louijeane invoked Rule 15 to shut it down — misusing procedure to silence debate. Neighbors called her out, rightly noting that Rule 15 was never meant to suppress entirely new proposals. Angela gave us a great playbook: Point of Order, Appeal to the Chair, Motions to Reconsider, amendments, public pressure, hearings, organizing. Knowledge is power, but only if we act on it.

Even our press has failed us. The Boston Globe, whose owner invested early on in the very soccer team slated to profit from this deal, has been silent on these conflicts of interest while repeating City Hall’s talking points.

Let’s be clear about what’s at stake. White Stadium is not just a sports facility. It’s a test of whether Boston will apply equal standards of public investment to Black and Brown neighborhoods. It’s a measure of whether we will repeat the sins of urban renewal and segregation, or whether we will finally honor the principle that public means public — for everyone, in every neighborhood.

So yes, Angela is right: one letter is not enough. A dozen voices are not enough. We need a movement. We need to organize testimony, petitions, media campaigns, and direct conversations with councilors who can challenge this misuse of power. We need to demand that City Councilor Mejia’s and the NAACP’s resolution for a public option be heard and debated on its merits. And we need to hold City Hall accountable for putting corporate interests ahead of community justice.

Fifty years ago, Boston failed to live up to the Constitution’s promise of equal protection until a federal court forced its hand. Do we really want to repeat that history? Or will we demand better of our leaders — and ourselves?

The answer will define not only White Stadium, but the soul of our city.

Now is the time to start “good trouble.” Let’s stand together, speak together, and act together — “because our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” (John Lewis, MLK).

Thank you all for your engagement!

-Rodney

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 12:04 AM Angela Williams-Mitchell <a.william...@bostonjobscoalition.org> wrote:

Greetings everyone.

This is an election year. If it is not broken, keep it; but if it is broken, replace it.

Congratulations to Rodney for stepping forward and putting pen to paper. His letter to Council President Ruthzee raised valid points and posed the very questions many of us have NOT voiced.

But here’s the truth: one letter — even a well-written one — is not enough. We know from experience that silence or scattered voices allow us to be railroaded, time and again. This is bigger than a dozen of us, and it impacts far more than a dozen families.

So the next step is clear: we must not allow our public park to be taken from the community. We will be imprisoned in our own homes and community during practice and especially on game days. Our children will be displaced, with nowhere to practice and play.

• Let’s organize our voices into a unified statement that reflects the concerns Rodney raised.
• Let’s decide on a strategy — whether that’s a public press release, a petition, coordinated testimony at the next Council meeting, or a sit-down with Ruthzee and allies on the Council.
• And let’s ensure this isn’t just a one-time burst of pushback, but a sustained campaign until this troubling project receives the fair and transparent process it deserves.

I am tired of being railroaded. I know many of you are, too. The question now is not “what will Rodney do?” but “what will WE do together?”

 

But all is not lost. The President of the Boston City Council is powerful, but not absolute.

Rule 15 can be challenged by councilors in the moment, corrected by a majority vote, or reinstated through motions and community advocacy.

 

Rule 15 Playbook: What to do if the council president misuses it

Quick Reminder:

Rule 15 says if multiple councilors file items on the same subject, only the first one filed goes on the agenda. Later items can still be co-sponsored, and amendments are allowed during debate.

But if the President uses Rule 15 unfairly — for example, blocking an item that isn’t actually the same, or denying co-sponsorships — here’s what to do:

 

 A. For Councilors (Inside the Chamber)

1. Call a Point of Order (Immediate Action)

• Say: “Point of order, Madam/Mr. President. I believe Rule 15 is being misapplied.”
• Forces the President to explain their ruling.

2. Appeal the Ruling of the Chair

• If the President doubles down, any councilor can say:
  “I appeal the ruling of the Chair.”
• The full Council then votes — majority rules. This takes the power out of one person’s hands.

3. File a Motion to Reconsider

• If the item gets blocked, a councilor can move at the next meeting to reconsider.
• This reopens the door for debate.

4. Use Amendments as Leverage

• Even if Rule 15 blocks a duplicate docket, councilors can amend the “first” docket to add in what was lost.

 

B. For Community Members (Outside the Chamber)

5. Apply Public Pressure

• Write letters, make calls, and use media to say:
  “Rule 15 is being used to silence community input.”
• Presidents are political actors — they don’t want headlines about shutting out neighborhoods.

6. Testify at Hearings

• If the docket does get a hearing, use testimony to point out how Rule 15 was misused.
• Put it on the public record that the community was denied fair consideration.

7. Rally Allies on the Council

• Work with friendly councilors to support appeals and reconsideration.
• A united bloc of members plus community pressure can force the issue back on the agenda.

 

C. Last Resorts

8. Rules Committee Review

• Councilors can request that the Rules Committee review how Rule 15 is being enforced and recommend changes.

9. Legal Avenues

• If misuse violates the City Charter or Open Meeting Law, legal complaints can be filed.
• Rarely used, but it’s a leverage if all else fails.

 

Summary Flow

1. Councilor calls Point of Order → Appeal Chair if denied
2. Council votes on appeal (majority decides)
3. If blocked, file a Motion to Reconsider or Amend
4. Community applies pressure through letters, testimony, and media
5. If ongoing abuse, push Rules Committee review or legal action

 

Bottom Line:

The Council President does not have the final word on Rule 15. With appeals, amendments, and public accountability, both councilors and the community have tools to make sure the rule serves transparency, not silencing.  Knowledge is power. We have all been educated! Individually, and collectively, what are we going to do next? 

This is an election year. If it is not broken, keep it; but if it is broken, replace it.

Remember to VOTE, September 9 and again on November 4, 2025

Angela

Community Empowerment Architect 

In the battles being fought and to be fought!

Angela Williams-Mitchell, Executive Director

Boston Jobs Coalition, Inc.

FB: @bostonjobscoalition

IG: @goodjobs4boston

angell...@gmail.com (personal)

617-388-9172 (cell)

Movements when created are uncomfortable. Uncomfortable, because they disrupt and force changes to the status quo.

However, change will not come if we wait for others. You and I are the ones to bring about the change. STOP Waiting !!!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Boston District7 Advisory Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to boston-district7-advis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/boston-district7-advisory-council/CAJX5ZaY%3DciSuJqZ0ytFQ1Y2qa2kXBujcYQvN-H9ECS5TJb5sNQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mae]

Thank you.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Highland Park Community Association" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to highlandparkbos...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/highlandparkboston/CAJX5ZaYV387-NOm3JS%3DkAv0XaNP7%2Br6nRmGF%2BAohvG-LqMf3%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rodney Singleton]

Thank you Martyn, for making that great point!

I live in District 7 folks and a big issue in our district is White Stadium. Here is how the vote went down when we were talking about a fully open and public redevelopment "process" at White Stadium, because that is not what the community got at the time:

Councilor Louijeane supported this. But now we are not advocating "process", we are now proposing an "alternate plan", on paper, that can be discussed, and this has been ruled as a duplication.

We can argue this point of duplication or not until the next election. But to Martyn's point, there's an election right in front of us, where we can act. If we believe our political representation is beholden to their own ambitions, rather than beholding to our interests, they must be voted out! 

Again, I live in D7 and here are some of the top issues in our district and how individuals on the city council align to Mayor Wu's position on each issue:

Here is another view where things are scored and ranked:

Voting independence is higher on the list, while the bottom of the list denotes less voting independence. 

What I see in this data is that Santana is mostly bad for D7. Imagine, you're a Councilor of color, and voting against the interests of a diverse constituency like D7, where a lot of folks are people of color? This obvious voting record, mostly siding with Mayor Wu on critical issues concerning D7, because somehow it's believed it will benefit a political career, and to hell with supporting the folks that voted a candidate into office, is grounds to be voted out of office. The city Council is supposed to be a check on Mayor's Wu power, not a rubber stamp on her agenda.

But folks in D7 could say the same thing about Weber, Pepen and Coletta. 

I will be voting my conscience and won't be voting for Santana for city Councilor at-large and trust a plea form the constituency of D7 to anyone in earshot of this email will help us in D7 to vote Santana out of office.

As for districts Weber, Pepen, and Zapata are responsible for:

• Write in anyone's name except for Weber!
• Vote for my Sister Sharon Hinton, who is all about community over, Pepen!
• Write in anyone's name except for Zapata!

In the +60% tier, it's interesting.  Proposing Mass and Cass a crisis was the right thing to do. Sharon Durkin shutting down a hot button issue in an election year, similar to what Louijeuan did with Rule 15 on White Statium is just another example in my book of doing Mayor Wu's bidding. Both Durkin and Louijeuan must go!

I will be voting my conscience and won't be voting for Louijeuan for city Councilor at-large and trust a plea form the constituency of D7 to anyone in earshot of this email will help us in D7 to vote Louijeuan out of office.

As for Durkin, that's Martyn's district and I'm encouraging him to write in his own name (big smile!).

Fitzgerald and Murphy are safe, as they were very put out by Durkin's antics in support of Mayor Wu. Also, Flynn is safe because he sponsored the measure, and has been known to break with Mayor Wu's positions in pricipaled ways that serve his constituency.

Brian Worrell, I would support his candidacy and think of others should. And I love, love, love supporting Julia Mejia's candidacy and think others should because she is the real deal and all is about advocating for her constituents.

I'm not gonna talk about D7 candidates here. So please exclude that idea from the data I'm about to present.

There is an organization with big clout in the Black and Brown community in Boston called "Right to the City" and they have their 2025 endorsements out for the election, and it's below and you can read all about it. Given the data I just presented, regarding Counselors that are bad for D7, they've picked many of the worst ones:

• Weber
• Pepen
• Zapata
• Louijeune
• Santana

So what is a voter to do? Does Right to the City have an agenda? I think so. And if Black and Brown Boston votes with Right to the City, we will be voting against our D7 interests. That's my take, but please do your own thoughtful, honest research, and then vote your conscience.  

Thanks for your attention and engagement.

-Rodney

Right to the City Vote Action Announces 2025 Endorsements Dear friends, This year, Boston has the chance to elect leaders who put working-class people and communities of color first. After months of conversations, public forums, and our thorough endorsement process, Right to the City Vote Action (RTCV) is proud to announce our slate of endorsed candidates in the 2025 Boston Municipal Election. These candidates share the values laid out in our 2025 Platform—a vision for a Boston where everyone can Remain, Reclaim, and Rebuild. From housing justice to economic dignity, from immigrant rights to public investment, these leaders are committed to advancing policies that reflect the needs of our communities. Mayor Michelle Wu City Council – District Races Mavrick Afonso (District 7) Liz Breadon (District 9) Gabriela “Gigi” Coletta Zapata (District 1) Brian Worrell (District 4) Enrique Pepen (District 5) Benjamin Weber (District 6) City Council – At-Large (You have 4 votes) Ruthzee Louijeune Julia Mejia Henry Santana Marvin Mathelier Take Action With Us ✅ Read our full platform here: RTCV Platform » ✍️ Pledge your support and commit to vote on September 9th: Sign the Pledge » 🗳️ Mark your calendar: Boston’s Preliminary Election is September 9, 2025. The deadline to register to vote is August 30th! Together, we can elect leaders who fight for us—not for developers or corporations—and keep building a Boston where we all belong. Sincerely, Right to the City Vote Action (RTCV) 📸 You may recognize the photo above from one of our candidate forums—whether you joined us for the District 7, At-Large, or Mayoral debates, your presence helped shape this process and land us here today. Donate to RTCV Action 501c4

View email in browser Right to the City Vote · 28 Ash St · Boston, MA 02111-1517 · USA update your preferences or unsubscribe

 

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 11:26 AM Martyn Roetter <mroe...@nabbonline.org> wrote:

Thank you again for reminding us of the history that has led us to this situation regarding the future of White Stadium/Franklin Park, and its implications for the future or credibility of the Green New Deal and what "community engagement" with city hall means in practice.

I note that there are 10 candidates in the imminent municipal election for the 4 at large Council seats including the current Council President. In my mind one important, if not the most important criterion for choosing which 4 to support in the preliminary election on 9/9 - early voting starts today - is who will likely be or who has already shown they are rubber stamps and not prepared to act as a constructive, responsive, responsible - to their constituents - and democratic (small d) check and balance on the mayor's executive power. 

Vote because it does matter and can and will make a difference, as the history of the White Stadium project among others shows, whichever side you are on.

We may be consumed with and justifiably and understandably  horrified at what the federal government is doing to undermine the Republic and the rule of law and the will of "we the people". Nevertheless we the people of Boston should not take our eyes off and neglect our responsibility to do whatever we can within our city to support and strengthen the better angels and the values of equality of opportunity, respect for the opinions of others, and the dignity of all humans which Boston has exhibited in its finest hours, even though admittedly our finest hours have often not been continuously evident  24/7 but intermittent.

Martyn

Martyn Roetter

144 Beacon Street

Boston MA 02116

USA

Cell: +1 (617) 216 1988

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 3:27 AM Rodney Singleton <rodne...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rodney Singleton]

We have a winner from the press! Thank you Niki Griswold from the Globe!

We're counting on the political landscape changing beyond the race for mayor for at-large councilors and beyond. It has to. In my last facebook post I got pushback saying a voting record doesn't indicate "anti-community." I beg to differ!

Let me clarify. The list I presented is: percent alignment to the mayor. The least alignment is ranked as follows for the top 5:

1. TFA (27%)

2. Mejia (31%)

3. Worrell (38%)

4. Flynn (54%)

5. Breadon (55%)

Let's focus on the top 2, given I've had lots of conversation and interaction with both TFA and Mejia and know their commitment to the community to be job one and each is unwavering in that commitment. I like Worrell and Flynn and their commitment as well, but the gold standard is TFA and Mejia, to which all other Councilors are measured for the way each engages and advocates on the community's behalf. I don't really know Breadon.

So let's push through the rest of the list:

6. Louijeune (62%)

7. Fitzgerald (63%)

8. Murphy (67%)

9. Durkan (67%)

10. Santana (75%)

11. Coletta (77%)

12. Pepen (78%)

13. Weber (86%)

Positions 10-13 are pretty straight forward. The councilors voted against the gold standard metric (TFA+Mejia) nearly 2.5 times. This is damaging to the district of D7 that I live in and works against the interests of my district councilor and the at-large councilor we know have the community front and center. We know Santana is still young and his vulnerability is he may not have found his voice and independence, but all of these issues should have been worked out by now.

Santana, Coletta, Pepen and Weber too often vote against the interests of the district and city councilor that represent where I live in D7, so I cannot in good conscience support these councilors.

6 through 9 is more nuanced, but can be worked out. Councilor Louijeune recently issued Rule 15 on discussion of a plan that would restore White Stadium and keep it fully public, which essentially shut down democratic consideration of a plan that is counter to Mayor Wu's plan, days before an election vote. Clearly Mayor Wu doesn't want to talk about White Stadium so close to the election, and her surrogates on the city council will help the cause.

Fitzgerald and Flynn recently held a much needed and urgent hearing on Mass and Cass to declare it a crisis that had to be held off-site of city council chambers because Sharon Durkan shut down the measure. More surrogate activity on the city council to shut down democratic exchange of ideas that Mayor Wu doesn't want to talk about so close to election day.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/.../boston-city-council.../

I wasn't at the Mass and Cass meeting, but did catch the live stream. Councilor Fitzgerald did a good job managing what was a very difficult time engaging with impacted constituents living out very difficult life circumstances. And credit to Councilor Murphy for calling out Durkan for blocking a measure she sponsored, for sketchy city sidewalks and Flynns bill for Mass and Cass.

Louijeune and Durkan have both demonstrated, not only a voting record counter and against the interests of the district and city councilor that represents where I live in D7, they also demonstrate an unhealthy capacity to protect and shield Mayor Wu from addressing hard issues that need addressing and matter to us all. So I cannot in good conscience support these councilors either.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/.../boston-at-large-council.../

Please VOTE your conscience on Tuesday!

Thanks for your engagement and time.

-Rodney

[Rodney Singleton]

Thank you Martyn for excellent points.

-Rodney

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 9:20 AM Martyn Roetter <mroe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for this analysis Rodney. I have a few comments to add, in particular about the role of the 4 at large Councilors compared to their District colleagues.

One of the ways the mayor (any mayor) can exert pressure on a Councilor to overcome or weaken opposition to the mayor's wishes and decisions or if you prefer to ensure that the City Council is a rubber stamp (the process of "rubberizing") is by directing funds preferentially towards or away from a District. The at larges are obviously less vulnerable to that kind of pressure tha District Councilors. They can also point to the fact that they have received votes from across the city, like the mayor, and therefore represent the entire city and not a constituency that can be denigrated - or worse demonized - as being parochial in its attitudes, or (heaven forfend!) NIMBY (in the traditional acronym, not the one I prefer of New Ideas in My Back Yard). I emphasize that the role of the Council as a check and balance on the executive (the mayor) is not synonymous with its being the or an Opposition, but means it is responsible for ensuring that the mayor (especially in Boston's "strong mayor" system) does not and cannot become and act as an autocrat. The 4 at larges will be key in determining whether the city council is a constructive check and balance or is simply filling in check marks and is not active in formulating  balanced outcomes in the best interests of the city.

The complement to a councilor's score regarding alignment with the mayor is alignment with their constituents, although I do not know of any data on that topic, and constituents themselves are usually not of one mind anyway.  In any event neither score is sufficient or complete if combined , because there is also the trustee model of representation to consider,  according to which the first duty of an elected official is to exercise their own mature, informed judgment - not to blindly follow the opinions or instructions of their constituents. Leadership is more than simply figuring out what most people want today and then reflecting that opinion as closely as possible in all instances. For example, if it turns out that the majority or a plurality of voters in a constituency are racist or intolerant of people who do not share their specific religious beliefs, should their elected representative advocate for new rules and laws that are oppressive and harmful to non-believers? There are many historical examples where electeds or candidates have followed their consciences or best informed judgments, and then failed to be elected or been turfed out as a result - and become candidates for a "Profiles in Courage" award. And over time we may come to admire them and use them as examples of electeds we would like to see more of.

If there is one word that should guide us as voters in evaluating candidates for office, it is "character." In the real world you cannot anticipate all the issues or challenges that may come up, even very unexpected ones, during an elected's  term in office. What level of trust do you have or can you determine should be placed in a candidate, regardless of what they say while seeking election or reelection, that they will be motivated and influenced by forces other than money and an overriding priority once in office to be reelected at all costs (costs to you and your community)? Sadly thanks to the Supreme Court money, always important, now plays a disproportionate and an outrageously huge and corrupting role - in legal as well as  political outcomes. But I digress. 

I for one do not expect a politician to do all they commit to during their electoral campaign and avoid all the sins they refer to pre election. Once in office you may recognize factors that were not fully apparent to you before the election and circumstances may materially change that are beyond your control. Nevertheless it is legitimate to call elected officials to account for what they have done and not done while in office and to compare their actions and decisions with the principles and values they have claimed to espouse, the specific actions they proposed, and then ask whether there are good reasons why they may not have done what that they once said they would .

For me the biggest gap in this year's municipal election is that I have seen few, if any, attempts to apply accountability to Boston's current Administration. Perhaps this is understandable, although I do not think it is excusable and is deeply regrettable , given the obviously much bigger picture of the appalling, vindictive, ongoing assaults on the American Republic and the looming perversion of commemorations of the events of a quarter of a millennium ago, in which Boston and Massachuseets played a key and indispensable part. There would not be a Texas or a Florida today with their current elected anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-democratic governance modus operandi without Massachusetts (or New York and several others). Oh well, talk about unexpected (undesirable) consequences.

My best wishes for all of us.

Martyn

P.S. My ancestors in the British Army were evacuated/deported back in the day. What will we do with uninvited soldiers on the Boston Common this time?

--

Martyn Roetter

144 Beacon Street

Boston, MA 02116, USA

Cell: (+1) 617 216 1988

[Rodney Singleton]

Richard, Martyn, Marti and Allen, You all got me motivated again. I've provided folks I would not support and vote for. The list includes Mayor Wu and here is why...

My wife has worked for the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public for over 30 years, nearly as many of the 35 years we’ve been married.

 

Given all the turmoil in Washington and attacks on higher education by the Trump administration, many are aware that the University has had north of $2 Billion in funding frozen, impacting critical research from neurodegenerative diseases to opioid addiction, to cancer. These are very real impacts to our lives, where the University depends on federal funding to cover nearly 60% of its budget. We’re talking about layoffs of researchers, uncertainty of doctoral students whose training grants were terminated and where literally years of research has been lost!

 

For what?! For an illegal action by the Trump administration, to freeze Harvard’s research funds, targeting the university with a bogus assertion of antisemitism that had been getting addressed anyway, way before the Trump administration was interested. In the words of the U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, a “smokescreen.”

 

Last week my dear wife had to do something she has never had to do in all the years of working for Harvard University. On the brink of tears and with very heartfelt talk, she had to lay off 3 of her staff, some she has known for her entire career at Harvard. A very difficult week is understatement, all in support of as Martyn Roetter put it an “anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti-democratic governance modus operandi.”

 

So, do I/we appreciate Mayor Wu taking the Trump administration to task? Absolutely!!!

 

But when I see ads come to my house that look like this, knowing everything we must deal with as a city, it feels like Mayor Wu wants Liz Warren’s job.

 

And many have said why is TFA the “gold standard” to be used as a metric, given her recent conviction and why focus so much on White Stadium?

TFA’s recent conviction notwithstanding, her ability to engage and advocate on behalf of her constituents to try and realize a shared vision is the gold standard I was referring to in my last post. While none of her supporters condone or excuse what she did, she has set a very high bar in her wake as D7 Councilor (see my letter for leniency below, and it’s my understanding she received over 150 such letters).

We should remember that the voting part of elections and who we choose is the easy part. Martyn’s right. Elections are also about character and accountability. TFA is being held to account, as she’ll have to do jail time.

Mayor Wu is doing us all a service by taking on the Trump administration and we appreciate that. But where is the accountability?

White Stadium:

Sadly, accountability for Mayor Wu is a list and White Stadium tops that list, as to many White Stadium is a story of Greed, Corruption, Racism, and Gentrification.

It was decades of systemic race-based unequal attention to the upkeep of White Stadium and Franklin Park more broadly that caused the deterioration of the stadium. We can all agree on that. While that is not entirely on Mayor Wu and her administration, the unprecedented level of privatization, and loss of fully public access, applied as the only solution to maintain parklands in neighborhoods of color in Boston and nowhere else in Boston, is precisely the systemic race based unequal protection that got us here in the first place. Mayor Wu should be held to account for this.

It would have been great if owners of women’s soccer, some rich enough to own a share in the Boston Celtics franchise, reached out to Mayor Wu and offered to fund renovations and upkeep of White Stadium, no strings attached. Altruistic, but that’s not what happened. Behind closed doors, with zero community engagement, the request for proposal (RFP) was tuned to one bidder and one bidder alone and then posted publicly, so says the Boston Herald, corrupting and short-circuiting the competitive bidding process for municipal projects. Mayor Wu and the administration says some 60 meetings took place to engage the community. But all those meetings took place after the RFP was cast, with no way to consider other options, chiefly completely public options. Mayor Wu should be held to account for this.

And if we’re to believe what we are hearing in and around the neighborhoods surrounding White Stadium, that developer speculation for land is ripe, these neighborhoods will experience a tsunami of gentrification that will swallow the existing community whole. Mayor Wu should be held to account for this.

 

Moving John D. O’Bryant from Roxbury to West Roxbury:

I am an alum of John D. O’Bryant and attended before the name changed when it was Boston Technical High School. I attended high school during the turbulent era of busing. I went on to Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Northeastern University and am a practicing Electrical Engineer, having worked in the field of electronics for nearly 38 years. Because of the STEM education I received at JD O’Bryant/Tech I make a decent living, one where my family can afford to stay in Boston. Imagine to all our horror to hear that Mayor Wu wanted to move JD O’Bryant to from centrally located Roxbury, serving up exam school quality STEM education to a very diverse student body, to West Roxbury serving a much more wealthy, less diverse population of students. The move never happened, but needed funding to help sustain the school has been deferred.

Honestly, back in the day I would have expected Louise Day Hicks, a prominent segregationist in Boston politics to try and abate school access in such a way. But Wu, the progressive and the one I supported and voted for in the last election, how? Mayor Wu should be held to account for this.

Sunsetting the PBDA:

I remember the city taking, by eminent domain, the home I was born in Roxbury. It was in the early 60s and sadly not a unique situation for homes in that part of Roxbury. Many acknowledge, including Mayor Wu, these powers were often racially biased against and hurt immigrant communities, people of color and the work poor. The motivation back then for taking a home was urban decay and blight.

Fast forward to today, and that same racially biased motivation to take property in Boston can be used, even though it’s nearly impossible to find property in Boston that fits this description. Now, to use this motivation for taking the city rationalize why a property that isn’t blighted, is blighted for the record. Mayor Wu tried to change the motivation/reason for taking homes to equity, affordability, or climate resilience, but the home rule petition died at the State House last year. But here’s the thing. Any racially biased policy, given any new name, is still a racially biased policy that’s been rebranded with a new name and is still just as harmful, correct?

All the old original Urban Renewal zones didn’t get reinstated because the vote was delayed for another two years. So we really didn’t sunset the BPDA. All that really happened was a bunch of employees were moved from the BPDA to the Mayor’s Office of Housing, under the guise of planning. Moreover, the BRA/BPDA Board with all that power remains intact, still answerable to Mayor Wu and any Mayor thereafter. We never ended the BRA/BPDA and replaced it with real planning. The BPDA Board can still decide to take your home, by rationalizing it’s blighted. And there is little a family can do about it. Mayor Wu should be held to account for this, especially since voters are under the impression we have a legitimate planning department, when we don’t.

These reasons are why I cannot support or vote for Mayor Wu. Because elections are about accountability too. And if we believe the polls we are seeing and Mayor Wu wins, we’ll all be right back to these issues, because they’re not going away, holding Wu and her administration to account. The harder and more difficult part of elections is accountability.

Thanks for your attention and engagement

-Rodney

***************************************************

 

Rodney Singleton

44 Cedar Street

Roxbury, MA, 02119

rodne...@gmail.com

(617) 417-5471 (cell)

July 14, 2025

 

The Honorable Talwani

Re: Sentencing Support Letter for City Councilor Tania Anderson

 

Dear Judge, Talwani:

I have known Tania Fernandes Anderson since she became City Councilor, representing District 7, through the formation of the District 7 Advisory Council, of which I am a member.

I write to you not to deny the seriousness of the law, but to ask for compassion in its application. I respectfully ask for leniency in the sentencing of Councilor TFA, who has recently pled guilty. I do so not to excuse the offense, but to affirm the totality of her service—and the vital light she brings to a community long kept in the shadows.

In Boston, neighborhoods like Roxbury, where I have lived for 64 years, we have endured generations of marginalization, shaped by a legacy of systemic racism in land use, housing, education, work opportunity and political representation. In that context, Councilor TFA is not merely a public official, but a voice—sometimes the only voice—for a community that too often goes unheard.

Councilor TFA listens and fosters ideas and policies that have carried real meaning for D7 residents—ideas that have helped shift the narrative, challenging city government to see those it has for too long ignored. In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson’s words—“He who receives an idea from me, receives it without lessening me; as he who lights his candle at mine, receives light without darkening me”—Councilor TFA’s representation, advocacy and civic formation of the District 7 Advisory Council helped light many candles. Our collective advocacy and ideas ignited hope, empowered civic engagement, and invited many into public dialogue who had never seen themselves reflected in power.

And yet, as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us, “Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a constant attitude.” MLK’s vision of a “beloved community” reminds us that justice without grace becomes retribution; that punishment without context can deepen the wounds it seeks to heal.

This is a moment for mercy—not because there are no consequences to wrongdoing, but because there is still great potential for repair. Councilor TFA remains someone capable of doing great good, capable of helping mend the very trust that was damaged. A tempered sentence—guided by justice but infused with compassion—would not only serve fairness, but would also honor the greater goal of reconciliation and community restoration.

Thank you for considering this request for leniency.

 

With respect,

Rodney Singleton

 

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 10:22 AM Richard Taylor <rlt4...@gmail.com> wrote:

I very much appreciate Rodney “s analysis and data points. Martyn , thank you for introducing “ character and integrity “ to the mix. I agree that one can never anticipate ALL the issues that confront elected officials. Indeed, I rarely agree on all issues with electeds. But what we must demand is character, access and integrity. 

A lot of issues facing D7 and Roxbury, Dorchester and Mattapan. Important to keep focus “ after “ the election as well.

Vote tomorrow for character!

Richard