Judge rules White Stadium renovation not in violation of state laws

Boston Globe

02-04-2025

A final price tag on the ambitious and costly public-private project is not yet known, but it is expected to exceed $200 million, with the Boston Legacy FC franchise responsible for more than half of that amount.
Advertisement
The city officially requested proposals for a White Stadium renovation in April 2023, with Boston Unity Soccer Partners submitting the only response, in late June.
Debate picked up in the second half of 2023, with the lawsuit filed on Feb. 20, 2024.
The lawsuit was a four-count complaint that sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the project, charging the city and soccer team of unlawfully converting land used by the public to private use, and doing so at a 'breakneck pace.'
A month later, Suffolk Superior Court Associate Judge Sarah Weyland Ellis denied the request for the project to be stopped and deemed the plaintiffs' case 'unlikely to succeed' in a trial.
Trial preparation proceeded last summer and fall, with the plaintiffs seeking but unable to receive a six-month postponement to the trial, which was scheduled for March 18.
Advertisement
At the same time the defense — the city and soccer team — were working together on two other parallel tracks: refining the stadium design to reflect community feedback and negotiating a lease and White Stadium usage agreement with each other.
A day before the trial began, Nestor ruled in favor of all of the defense's motions, essentially throwing out half of the plaintiffs' case, that they had standing to litigate on whether the project violated terms of the George R. White Trust.
That left the bulk of the trial to be focused on if the renovation and construction project constituted a violation of Article 97, a Massachusetts law passed in 1972 that requires a two-thirds majority vote of each house of the legislature if the use of public parkland is changed.
As the trial opened, Nestor asked attorneys on each side to stick to the evidence and witness testimonies, saying, 'I'm not here to decide if this is a good project or a bad project.'
The defense rested much of its case on how the project adheres to the original terms of the trust, which spelled out how the Boston Public Schools would manage and operate use of the stadium for student-athletes and the community. That usage agreement was signed off on by the legislature before the stadium opened in 1949.
The plaintiffs asked Nestor to see the entire project as an Article 97 violation, pointing out that the latest design plans included the requirement of shuttle buses and supply trucks to use Franklin Park roads that were outside the 14-acre stadium parcel carveout.
Advertisement
Witnesses for the plaintiffs included three from the Franklin Park Defenders group that has organized against the project: Renee Stacy Welch, Louis Elisa, and Dr. Jean McGuire; a consultant; and Karen Mauney-Brodek, president of lead plaintiff Emerald Necklace Conservancy.
The defense called three witnesses: Diana Fernandez Bibeau, deputy chief of urban design for the city; Avery Esdaile, senior director of athletics for BPS; and Liza Meyer, the chief landscape architect and interim commissioner of the Boston Parks Department.
When Nestor gaveled the three-day trial to a close, he said he would need a week or two to deliver a verdict. He also paid tribute to the project's supporters and detractors who filled the gallery during the trial.
'I've seen you in the back and — 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 still be neighbors and still be friends,' said Nestor.
Pre-trial debate over the project picked up late last fall and early winter, with City Councilors Ed Flynn and Erin Murphy asking Mayor Michelle Wu and the city to abandon the project.
Just before Christmas, the lease and stadium usage agreement were signed, spelling out details of the business arrangement, including particulars rent, revenue sharing, scheduling between BPS, the team, and community, and more.
After spending a few weeks poring over the lease and gaining insight into construction impacts, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.
Meanwhile, in late January, demolition of the stadium began. Around the sa,e time, the debate moved to City Council chambers.
Advertisement
A week after a nine-hour meeting that featured extensive testimony from mostly stadium opponents, the council debated a resolution to pause the project. The non-binding proposal did not earn a majority vote, as the councilors were split, 6-6.
In late February, Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office announced that it would not back the plaintiffs. By the week of the trial, half the stadium, the east grandstand, had been razed.
Linda Henry, CEO of Boston Globe Media Partners,
Michael Silverman can be reached at