logo
These are the Big 3 issues to watch in Boston's mayoral race — and one sleeper

These are the Big 3 issues to watch in Boston's mayoral race — and one sleeper

Yahoo25-06-2025
If you live in Greater Boston and you've been within 10 feet of your television, laptop or cellphone over the last couple of weeks, then you're well aware that the race for Boston City Hall is in full swing.
Forces aligned with incumbent Democratic Mayor Michelle Wu and her main Democratic challenger, philanthropist Josh Kraft, have launched an all-out assault on voters' attention spans with a series of attack advertisements on TV, online and by text message.
More about that in a minute.
But first, with Election Day still four months away and Massachusetts in the grip of its first summer heat wave (100 degrees!), the chances are pretty good that you're thinking less about politics and more about trips to the pool, that vacation on the Cape and how you're going to get the kids to day camp.
So, before you unplug entirely and stop paying attention until the traditional post-Labor Day reboot, here's a quick look at the Top 3 issues that have shaped the campaign so far, and one sleeper that you should keep at the back of your mind as well.
Spend even a couple of minutes with a Bostonian, and it's pretty much guaranteed that talk will soon turn to the city's preposterously high housing costs.
How high?
The median home price in the city in May was $845,986, a 4.5% increase over the prior 12 months, according to Rocket Mortgage data. The average rent (a different metric) was $3,767, according to RentCafe data. But rents in some neighborhoods, such as Back Bay, Beacon Hill and the South End, are much higher.
So, it's also not surprising, then, that the topic dominated a mayoral forum last month.
Wu and Kraft both said they supported some form of rent stabilization. Unlike the incumbent, however, Kraft said he opposed a transfer fee on high-value real estate transactions.
Critics have charged that Kraft's embrace of rent control may be a calculated move, since the issue is a winner with city voters.
In 2023, Wu unsuccessfully pitched the Legislature on a plan that would have capped annual rent increases at 10% or the inflation rate, plus 6% — whichever was lower, according to published reports.
Kraft's plan, which would be voluntary, asks landlords to cap rents at the inflation rate, plus 5%, for a decade, GBH News reported.
'[Kraft's proposal] is not rent control, but the fact that he's proposing it shows how significant an issue housing has become for the city,' Josh Zakim, a former city councilor who now runs a housing advocacy group, told The Boston Globe. 'It's the biggest issue facing the city and the commonwealth, and I don't think you can run a serious campaign for public office here without a plan to address it.'
The two also have very different visions for increasing the city's stock of affordable housing, though they both agree that it's badly needed.
One policy at issue is inclusionary zoning, which requires new residential developments with seven or more units to set aside at least 20% of units as affordable housing.
Kraft has said he believes a 13% threshold is more reasonable.
Public safety and crime — particularly in Boston's downtown core — also has emerged as one of the key flash points in the race.
Kraft has vowed to clean up the open-air drug market at Massachusetts Avenue and Melnea Cass Boulevard, an area locally known as 'Mass and Cass.'
He's also promised to take the same approach to the city's Downtown Crossing neighborhood, which has been beset by rising crime and addiction challenges.
In April, Kraft called for a mix of increased law enforcement, as well as what he described as a 'recovery-first' approach to helping people living with addiction and housing and other services to get people off the street.
Wu, who has repeatedly stressed that Boston is among the safest big cities in the nation, countered that 'some of what has been put forward in [Kraft's] so-called 'plan' are items that already have been in progress, and that the [Boston] police department and our Public Health Commission and the city have already implemented. Some are points that we have evaluated and do not believe would move us in the right direction.'
Wu also used that debate as cover to bring up one of her favorite criticisms: That Kraft, despite working in the city for decades at the Boys & Girls Club, is still a newcomer to city politics.
'Overall, I think what's concerning here is that there's, you know, this isn't a new issue, and we're not parachuting into a conversation,' Wu told GBH's 'Boston Public Radio' program earlier this year. 'I've had the chance as a city councilor and now as mayor, to be involved from day one and within the first two months of our administration.'
As one legendary Boston pol, the late Tip O'Neill, once noted: All politics is local. And it doesn't get much more local than the hotly debated plan to redevelop the historic White Stadium in Franklin Park.
Wu and Kraft, the son of billionaire New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, have most recently sparred over the cost of the redeveloped stadium, which will be home to Boston's new professional women's soccer team.
Kraft has claimed the city will be on the hook for $170 million for construction and associated costs. That's just about double the $90 million price tag offered by Wu's office.
Pressed for specifics, Kraft recently said that 'folks on the inside at City Hall' had passed along the higher estimate.
In an interview with WBUR on Tuesday, Wu called Kraft's math on the stadium 'quite irresponsible.' She told the station his numbers are 'not real.'
' Honesty and integrity are really important,' Wu told WBUR. 'To pull something out without context, and misuse that, and apply something that's a completely false context, I think says a lot.'
Away from the numbers, the fight over White Stadium has become a proxy for what Kraft says is one of the fundamental issues of Wu's administration: That Wu does not heed city residents' concerns.
A group of Franklin Park neighbors has voiced their concern about bringing hectic professional athletic competitions to the public park. Some critics, Kraft included, contend the city is giving away a public facility to a private team that will prevent full access for Boston's student-athletes.
Wu has defended the project, also the target of court fights, saying it will bring badly needed new facilities for city school students who will have access to the stadium 'for 15 hours per day, more than 345 days of the year.'
Under an agreement with the city, Boston Legacy FC, will use the faciliy for 20 games and 20 practices each year.
'I will not apologize for investing nearly $100 million into this community, into Black and Brown communities, into our students, and into the [Boston Public Schools] BPS,' she said, according to GBH News. 'We deserve this, and we deserve to have the opportunity that generation after generation has passed us by.'
We'll stipulate up front that campaigns are won and lost on how effectively candidates connect with voters and articulate their respective visions.
But if you really want to know what seismic forces are shaping a campaign, follow the money.
Super PACs supporting both Wu and Kraft have flooded the mayoral contest with cash, recently pouring nearly $1 million into the campaign.
The pro-Kraft 'Your City, Your Future,' which counts Fanatics owner Michael Rubin, New Balance Chairperson Jim Davis, and Boston Celtics minority owner Rob Hale among its biggest backers, reported raising $230,100 between May 30 and June 18, state filings show.
That comes on top of the $2.4 million the super PAC raised in the opening months of the race. That money has underwritten a barrage of attack advertisements.
The pro-Wu super PAC Bold Boston reported raising $743,000 between Jan. 1 and June 12, according to a report filed with the state's Office of Campaign and Political Finance. The group reported spending $256,114.
The money underwrote a campaign commercial highlighting supporters of President Donald Trump, who donated to a pro-Kraft super PAC.
Two big donors to the pro-Wu super PAC included the political arms of the Environmental League of Massachusetts and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who respectively donated $175,000 and $50,000, records showed.
Out-of-town money also has poured into the contest, according to a MassLive analysis of campaign donations. As of June 3, 45% of Wu's donations came from Boston residents compared to 32% for Kraft.
Read more: Yes, immigration is a flash point in Boston's mayoral race. A debate confirmed it | Bay State Briefing
State filings showed Wu sitting on $2.3 million in her campaign war chest through Tuesday.
Kraft, who injected $2 million of his own money into his campaign, was just behind at $1.95 million, state filings showed.
MassLive Reporters Will Katcher and Tréa Lavery contributed to this analysis.
Mass. Senate set to make its first move against Trump in 2025 | Bay State Briefing
How Beacon Hill bosses quietly buried reform bills that threatened their power
Markey Warns: Rural health crisis looms if Big Beautiful Bill passes | Bay State Briefing
Read the original article on MassLive.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Colorado Congressmen Joe Neguse, Jason Crow part of lawsuit against Trump administration over ICE facility access
Colorado Congressmen Joe Neguse, Jason Crow part of lawsuit against Trump administration over ICE facility access

CBS News

timea minute ago

  • CBS News

Colorado Congressmen Joe Neguse, Jason Crow part of lawsuit against Trump administration over ICE facility access

Colorado Congressmen Joe Neguse and Jason Crow are among a dozen Democratic members of Congress filing a lawsuit against President Trump's administration, claiming a new policy is obstructing congressional oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. The lawsuit claims that the administration is preventing members of Congress from accessing information and conducting visits to ensure the Department of Homeland Security is complying with federal law. They say this policy includes a seven-day waiting period and restrictions on visiting detention sites, which violates a federal law allowing them access without prior notice. On July 20, Crow, who represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District, said he was denied entry into the ICE detention facility in Aurora. The complaint says, "As part of its campaign of mass deportation, the Trump-Vance administration has stretched the U.S. immigration detention system far beyond its capacity. More people are being held by the United States in immigration detention than ever before, with many facilities housing more individuals than they were built to contain." Representatives cited many concerns as the reason for needed oversight, including overcrowding, sanitation, lack of medical care, mistreatment and lack of access to counsel. In two statements released after Crow's visit, ICE said requests need to be made with enough advanced notice to prevent interference in the President's Article II authority to oversee executive department functions. They suggested that a week would be enough notice and that the security protocols were for the safety of the staff and detainees. "Blocking Members of Congress from oversight visits to ICE facilities that house or otherwise detain immigrants clearly violates Federal law—and the Trump administration knows it," said Neguse, the U.S. House Assistant Minority Leader who represents Colorado's 2nd Congressional District. "Such blatant disregard for both the law and the constitutional order by the Trump administration warrants a serious and decisive response, which is why I'm proud to lead the lawsuit we proceeded with earlier today." The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, demands that the administration comply with the law. Neguse is one of a dozen representatives who are part of the lawsuit who argue that blocking Congress hinders accountability and threatens democracy. "Today, I filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after they illegally denied me access into a federal immigration detention facility," said Crow. "Oversight is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Under law, Members of Congress have the right to do unannounced oversight visits of federal immigration detention facilities. Since President Trump was elected, this administration has denied Members of Congress access to immigration detention facilities and tried to intimidate us from doing our jobs. I will not be deterred from conducting lawful oversight, and I'll continue fighting to hold the administration accountable, including in Congress and the courts." Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin released the following statement about the lawsuit: "These Members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour; instead, they're running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails. "Here are the facts. As ICE law enforcement have seen a surge in assaults, disruptions, and obstructions to enforcement - including by Member of Congress themselves - any requests to tour processing centers and field offices must be approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security. These requests must be part of legitimate congressional oversight activities. ICE officers have seen an 830% surge in assaults. "As for visits to detention facilities, requests should be made with sufficient time to prevent interference with the President's Article II authority to oversee executive department functions-a week is sufficient to ensure no intrusion on the President's constitutional authority. To protect the President's Article II authority, any request to shorten that time must be approved by the Secretary."

12 members of Congress sue Trump administration to ensure access to ICE detention centers
12 members of Congress sue Trump administration to ensure access to ICE detention centers

Hamilton Spectator

time16 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

12 members of Congress sue Trump administration to ensure access to ICE detention centers

A dozen Democratic members of Congress who have been blocked from making oversight visits at immigration detention centers filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Trump administration that seeks to ensure they are granted entry into the facilities, even without prior notice. The lawsuit, filed in the District of Columbia's federal court, said the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are obstructing Congressional oversight of the centers at a time when there's been an increase in ICE arrests , with reports of raids across the country and people taken into custody at immigration courts . By law, members of Congress are allowed to visit ICE facilities and don't have to give any notice, but increasingly, the members have been stopped at the door. ICE officials have said a new rule requires a seven-day waiting period and they prohibit entry to the ICE field offices. The lawsuit asks the court for full and immediate access to all ICE facilities. ICE Director Todd Lyons told a congressional committee in May that he recognized the right of members of Congress to visit detention facilities, even unannounced. But DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told a different committee that members of Congress should have requested a tour of an immigration detention facility in New Jersey where a skirmish broke out in May. As President Donald Trump's immigration agenda plays out, detention facilities have become overcrowded and there have been reports of mistreatment, food shortages, a lack of medical care and unsanitary conditions, the lawsuit said. Congress has a duty to make sure the administration is complying with the law while operating the facilities, the lawsuit said. The recently passed budget bill allocates $45 billion for ICE detention — more than 13 times ICE's current annual detention budget, the lawsuit said. Members of Congress must ensure those funds are spent efficiently and legally, the suit said. But recent attempts by House members to visit facilities were blocked, the lawsuit said. 'These members of Congress could have just scheduled a tour; instead, they're running to court to drive clicks and fundraising emails,' DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told the AP in an email. Requests for visits to detention centers should be made 'with sufficient time to prevent interference with the President's Article II authority to oversee executive department functions—a week is sufficient to ensure no intrusion on the President's constitutional authority,' she said. Also, ICE has seen a surge in assaults, disruptions and obstructions to law enforcement so any requests for tours of ICE processing centers and field offices must be approved by Secretary Noem, McLaughlin said. When Rep. Veronica Escobar tried to visit the El Paso center on July 9, ICE told her that they could not accommodate her attendance and said it is 'now requiring requests to be made seven calendar days in advance,' the lawsuit said. When the Democrat arrived at the center, she was denied entry. Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colorado, met a similar fate when he tried to visit the ICE Aurora Facility on July 20. 'ICE is holding men, women, and children in overcrowded rooms without beds, showers, or medical care — sometimes for days on end,' Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight, which filed the lawsuit with Democracy Forward. 'ICE's stonewalling is not only illegal — it's a brazen attempt to shield abuse from scrutiny.' While ICE is demanding a week's notice for detention center visits, it said it's prohibiting members of Congress from inspecting ICE field offices, where some detainees are being held. When Rep. Daniel Goldman, D-New York, tried to tour the ICE New York Field Office in June, he was told his oversight authority doesn't apply there, because it's not a 'detention facility.' When Goldman went to the office, the deputy director barred his entry, but confirmed that people were being held overnight, sometimes for several days, but the facility did not have beds or showers. Reps. Joe Neguse, D-Colorado; Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi; and Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, made a similar attempt to enter the ICE Washington Field Office in Chantilly, Virgini,a on July 21 after learning that people were being detained there. But they also were turned away without being able to view the conditions at the site. The other House members who are fighting for ICE access include: California Democratic Representatives Norma Torres, Raul Ruiz, Jimmy Gomez, Jose Luis Correa and Robert Garcia. Also suing is Adriano Espaillat, D-New York. 'No child should be sleeping on concrete, and no sick person should be denied care, yet that's exactly what we keep hearing is happening inside Trump's detention centers,' Gomez said in a statement. 'This lawsuit is our message: We as Members of Congress will do our job, and we will not let these agencies operate in the shadows.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Trump exploits loopholes to keep Alina Habba in US attorney role, triggering court clash
Trump exploits loopholes to keep Alina Habba in US attorney role, triggering court clash

Fox News

time19 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Trump exploits loopholes to keep Alina Habba in US attorney role, triggering court clash

President Donald Trump is pulling out all the stops to keep his loyal allies in top prosecutor roles in blue states, including his former personal attorney Alina Habba in New Jersey, where a court battle now casts doubt over who is running the U.S. attorney's office. Trump has attempted to circumvent the Senate confirmation process to maintain Habba's authority, as well as the authority of his appointees in California and New York. Habba's appointment, however, has been complicated by a legal challenge from a criminal defendant in her district. Habba said in a statement to Fox News Digital she is unfazed by the development. "I am confident we will win any and all attempts to thwart the well-established Article II Powers of the Executive Branch and the President of the United States," Habba said. Habba's appointment appeared set to end last week when federal judges in New Jersey voted to replace her instead of extending her temporary term under federal vacancy laws. The judges picked veteran prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace to succeed Habba, who lacks a prosecutorial background. But the Trump administration attempted to outmaneuver the judges by firing Grace and switching Habba from interim to "acting" U.S. attorney. The move has caused confusion about who is leading the office, according to the attorney of criminal defendant Julien Giraud. Giraud is facing run-of-the-mill drug and gun charges in Habba's district, but his attorney, Thomas Mirigliano, said Habba's "irregular" designation and re-designation as U.S. attorney is unlawful and grounds for dismissing his client's case. "Facing an imminent criminal trial proceeding under questionable legal authority, Giraud Jr., hereby seeks dismissal of the indictment or, alternatively, injunctive relief barring Ms. Habba, or any Assistant United States Attorney acting under her purported authority, from exercising further prosecutorial powers in this matter," Mirigliano wrote in court papers. Court proceedings across the District of New Jersey were also brought to a standstill because of the lingering questions about Habba's authority, the New York Times reported Monday. A federal judge in Pennsylvania is overseeing Giraud's new motion because of the New Jersey federal court's conflict of interest in the matter. To appoint Habba as acting U.S. attorney, Trump also had to withdraw her nomination as permanent U.S. attorney. Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, New Jersey's Democratic senators, had blocked her path to confirmation through the Senate's blue slip tradition. Booker said in a statement that he too thought Habba had unlawfully reassumed the role as top prosecutor in his state. "This Administration may not like the law, but they are not above it," Booker said. Similar situations cropped up in New York and California but have not invited the same level of scrutiny as Habba's has at this stage. Bill Essayli, the temporary U.S. attorney in the Central District of California, was transitioned Tuesday from interim to acting U.S. attorney at the end of his 120-day tenure. Essayli is a Trump-aligned prosecutor who made national headlines after he brought a series of high-profile charges against anti-ICE activists protesting in Los Angeles last month, but critics have observed that his office has since moved to dismiss some of those cases or reduce the charges. The chief judge in Essayli's district, Dolly Gee, an Obama appointee, declined to take action on permanently approving Essayli after his 120-day interim period. The Trump administration's legal maneuvers to keep him in his job have positioned him to serve as the district's lead prosecutor for at least an additional 210 days, the designated term for an acting U.S. attorney. In the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone was also transitioned from interim to acting U.S. attorney.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store