Public transit, traffic, parking: Charlestown residents share concerns, priorities with Wu over proposed Everett stadium
Related
:
'We have to leverage the stadium for what it is, we have to leverage it for fixing the road systems,' said one resident.
Advertisement
Speaking to the crowd Tuesday, Wu emphasized the importance of public input as her administration bargains over what benefits the Kraft Group will agree to provide Boston residents in order to get the city's sign off on the project.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
'We need to make sure that the community that's most impacted by this proposal is right here with us, sharing what you're thinking, how you're feeling, how the other impacts that are already happening in the neighborhood have to be factored in,' Wu said.
A
While the project site, currently a shuttered power plant, is located in Everett, much of the traffic that would flow to the proposed stadium for games, concerts, and other events would go through Charlestown, just across the Mystic River from the 43-acre site. Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria has been in conversations with the Kraft Group over the proposal, and signed a preliminary agreement with the team in November 2023. But state lawmakers included Boston in the legislation passed in November, in response to concerns that the Wu administration was left out of those discussions.
Advertisement
Wu has argued the stadium, which currently only includes plans for about 75 parking spots, would have a significant impact on Charlestown, particularly on its transportation infrastructure and increased traffic at the Sullivan Square MBTA station. City officials at Tuesday's meeting said the administration is prioritizing securing investments related to transportation, open space, coastal resilience, and benefits for local businesses and the community, in the mitigation agreement.
Related
:
State Representative Daniel J. Ryan and state Senator Sal DiDomenico, both Democrats who represent Charlestown on Beacon Hill, also attended the meeting, along with Boston City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata, whose district includes Charlestown.
The Globe previously reported that negotiations between the Revs and the city of Boston have gotten off to a tense start as a state-imposed deadline looms. The preliminary agreement DeMaria signed with the Kraft Group only includes an offer of $750,000 for improvements to Charlestown athletic fields. The Wu administration called that an inadequate starting point, particularly when taking into account a $68 million deal the city reached with the nearby Encore Boston Harbor casino nine years ago.
According to the statewide legislation passed in November, the two sides must come to a deal by May 1, at which point a mediator would get involved. If the parties don't come to an agreement by Dec. 31, it'll go to an arbitration panel.
But on Tuesday, Wu said she didn't have much of an update on those discussions to share with residents.
'Things really haven't kicked off very much in terms of substantive conversations, because there really hasn't been that much to discuss from the project proponents: We haven't really seen specific details,' Wu said. 'To this date, I still have not gotten a call from the Krafts. ... There's been just radio silence.'
Advertisement
Wu added that her team has had two meetings with the Kraft Group, and conversations are continuing, but her administration is waiting on more details. In the meantime, they intend to take community feedback and use that to inform what benefits the city pushes for in the agreement.
'I am not sold on a soccer stadium for the sake of soccer stadium,' Wu said. 'I would welcome this one, if we can get the transportation impacts right, if we can get them again to sign a legally binding agreement that does right by Charlestown residents and Boston residents. I hope we can get there.'
A representative for the Kraft Group and the New England Revolution did not immediately return the Globe's request for comment.
Longtime philanthropist Josh Kraft, the third son of Patriots and Revs' owner Robert Kraft, is challenging Wu as she runs for reelection this year. Kraft has said he would recuse himself from any negotiations involving his family's businesses should he become mayor of Boston.
Wu, speaking on GBH's 'Boston Public Radio' Tuesday morning had a more curt response when asked what she would do in Kraft's position.
'I would stay working for my father,' she said.
Jon Chesto of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Niki Griswold can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Booker won't accept money from Elon Musk for campaign, but urges him to 'sound the alarm' on Trump-backed bill
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., told NBC News on Sunday that he wouldn't accept money from Elon Musk for his re-election campaign, but urged the former Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) official to "sound the alarm" on the "big, beautiful bill" endorsed by President Donald Trump. "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker asked Booker on Sunday if he would accept money from Musk after the billionaire and the president traded barbs. "I will partner with anyone like I did in the last Congress, putting my vote alongside of John McCain's, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins to stop the tearing down of the Affordable Care Act. This is not about right or left. It's about right or wrong. And this bill is disastrous for the average American, driving up this cost. This bill is disastrous for our long-term economy. This is an American issue, and I welcome Elon Musk, not to my campaign, I welcome him right now, not to sit back and fire off tweets, to get involved right now in a more substantive way, in putting pressure on Congresspeople and senators to not do this," Booker said. Timeline: Inside The Evolving Relationship Between Trump And Musk From First Term To This Week's Fallout Welker asked Booker again if he would accept money from Musk. "I would not accept money from Elon Musk for my campaign, but I would be supportive of anybody, including Elon Musk, putting resources forward right now to let more Americans know, sound the alarm, treat this like a Paul Revere moment. More Americans have to understand that if this bill passes, average Americans are going to see their costs skyrocket, as this president, again, pushes legislation that is indicative of his chaos, corruption and cruelty towards Americans," Booker said. Read On The Fox News App Musk criticized the Trump-backed bill as a "disgusting abomination." "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk said in a post on X. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." Gop Senators Express 'Concerns,' 'Skepticism' Over Trump's Spending Bill After Musk Rant Welker also pressed Booker on the state of the Democratic Party, asking the liberal senator about former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's decision to register as an Independent, which she announced along with a new book about her time in the White House. "Do you think Democrats have to distance themselves from the party brand in order to win?" Welker asked, noting some of New Jersey's gubernatorial candidates have also been critical of the party, ahead of the primary election on Tuesday. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture "I think the Democrats right now all across America should be less concerned about the Democratic Party and more concerned with the American people. There's a trust problem for Republicans and Democrats. Most Americans voted against both of the presidential candidates in the last election. We need to start standing up and show we're fighting for Americans right now," Booker responded. Booker also said he was going to endorse whoever wins the Democratic gubernatorial primary in New article source: Booker won't accept money from Elon Musk for campaign, but urges him to 'sound the alarm' on Trump-backed bill
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - What's the matter with Ohio? Trump tariffs are a loser even in Red states.
Donald Trump largely got a second chance at the presidency due to a deep dissatisfaction with the economy. It turns out his tariff policy has not eased fears and in fact may be fueling deeper anxieties among voters. It is one of the few issues where a significant number of Republican voters are willing to break with the president. Notably, independent voters are also spooked by tariff uncertainty. While public opinion polling in the aggregate has illustrated these trends, few polls have probed how Red State voters are reacting to Trump's tariff policies. Once a prized bellwether state, Ohio has now voted solidly Republican in the last three elections, including a double-digit margin of victory for Trump in 2024. Yet, our poll of Buckeye voters finds Trump is currently underwater and the tariffs are a major reason why. A majority of Ohio voters (51 percent) believe the Trump tariff policies will personally hurt them and just 1 in 4 think his tariff policies will benefit them. About half think the tariffs will hurt the United States (49 percent), while 38 percent think the country will benefit from them. This is somewhat vexing as Trump had long indicated he would engage in an aggressive tariff policy in his second term. Perhaps the uneven rollout and increased media attention to the potential effects of tariffs on the American consumer could be driving the discontent. Although Trump enjoys almost universal support among Republicans in our poll on most issues, there is some melt when it comes to the tariffs. Just 47 percent of Republicans think the tariffs will personally help them, and less than 1 in 5 think the tariffs will personally hurt them. Independents also provide some caution, as a majority (53 percent) think they will personally be hurt by Trump's tariff policies. The poll finds some rare bipartisan agreement in who respondents think will benefit most from the tariff policies. Respondents overwhelmingly think the tariffs will benefit the wealthy (66 percent) and large corporations (60 percent). Majorities of both Democrats (75 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) believe the wealthy will benefit from the tariff policies. Seventy-two percent of independents also believe the wealthy will benefit. When it comes to large corporations, however, it is Republicans who are most likely to agree that these entities would likely benefit from the Trump tariff policies, with 67 percent in agreement, compared to 55 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Independents. Large majorities of all respondents believe that small businesses (59 percent), the middle class (58 percent), the working class (58 percent), labor unions (58 percent) and the United States automobile industry (54 percent) do not stand to benefit from the tariffs. Although Trump has claimed that his tariff policies would benefit these groups, thus far, most people appear to be skeptical. This is a message Democrats will likely amplify leading up to next year's midterm elections. As might be expected, the largest amount of agreement among all respondents is that foreign governments would not benefit from the tariffs (75 percent). Overall, we find Trump's approval in Ohio is underwater with 47 percent approving and 48 percent disapproving of his job in office. Keep in mind that this poll is of voters who indicated they supported Trump by a 10-point margin, largely reflecting the actual outcome of the 2024 election in the state. Moreover, this is a 7-point slide in favorability from when we polled Ohio voters in February of this year. Nationally, Trump's approval is at minus 4, with 46 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. The frenzied pace of the first few months of the second Trump presidency has created some unease among many voters as well. Not surprisingly, nearly 9 in 10 Democrats feel more anxious (86 percent). More broadly, majorities of non-whites (59 percent), those 18-44 (53 percent) and women (50 percent), personally feel more anxious with Trump as president. While 24 percent of independents are less anxious with Trump as president, 43 percent are more anxious with him as president. Notably, Trump has changed course on the implementation of his tariffs on several occasions already, likely fueling more uncertainty among voters. Citizens across the country and in red states in particular have conveyed a strong distrust in government and an impulse for change. The advantages Republicans have in the House and Senate may be in jeopardy, given that the president's party has an average midterm loss of 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate from 1934-2018. In 2022, Republicans gained just 8 seats in the House and lost one seat in the Senate. If public opinion continues in this direction, especially in red states, some Republicans will be faced with difficult choices on how closely they align themselves with Trump and his tariff agenda. Robert Alexander is a professor of political science at Bowling Green State University. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
What's the matter with Ohio? Trump tariffs are a loser even in Red states.
Donald Trump largely got a second chance at the presidency due to a deep dissatisfaction with the economy. It turns out his tariff policy has not eased fears and in fact may be fueling deeper anxieties among voters. It is one of the few issues where a significant number of Republican voters are willing to break with the president. Notably, independent voters are also spooked by tariff uncertainty. While public opinion polling in the aggregate has illustrated these trends, few polls have probed how Red State voters are reacting to Trump's tariff policies. Once a prized bellwether state, Ohio has now voted solidly Republican in the last three elections, including a double-digit margin of victory for Trump in 2024. Yet, our poll of Buckeye voters finds Trump is currently underwater and the tariffs are a major reason why. A majority of Ohio voters (51 percent) believe the Trump tariff policies will personally hurt them and just 1 in 4 think his tariff policies will benefit them. About half think the tariffs will hurt the United States (49 percent), while 38 percent think the country will benefit from them. This is somewhat vexing as Trump had long indicated he would engage in an aggressive tariff policy in his second term. Perhaps the uneven rollout and increased media attention to the potential effects of tariffs on the American consumer could be driving the discontent. Although Trump enjoys almost universal support among Republicans in our poll on most issues, there is some melt when it comes to the tariffs. Just 47 percent of Republicans think the tariffs will personally help them, and less than 1 in 5 think the tariffs will personally hurt them. Independents also provide some caution, as a majority (53 percent) think they will personally be hurt by Trump's tariff policies. The poll finds some rare bipartisan agreement in who respondents think will benefit most from the tariff policies. Respondents overwhelmingly think the tariffs will benefit the wealthy (66 percent) and large corporations (60 percent). Majorities of both Democrats (75 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) believe the wealthy will benefit from the tariff policies. Seventy-two percent of independents also believe the wealthy will benefit. When it comes to large corporations, however, it is Republicans who are most likely to agree that these entities would likely benefit from the Trump tariff policies, with 67 percent in agreement, compared to 55 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Independents. Large majorities of all respondents believe that small businesses (59 percent), the middle class (58 percent), the working class (58 percent), labor unions (58 percent) and the United States automobile industry (54 percent) do not stand to benefit from the tariffs. Although Trump has claimed that his tariff policies would benefit these groups, thus far, most people appear to be skeptical. This is a message Democrats will likely amplify leading up to next year's midterm elections. As might be expected, the largest amount of agreement among all respondents is that foreign governments would not benefit from the tariffs (75 percent). Overall, we find Trump's approval in Ohio is underwater with 47 percent approving and 48 percent disapproving of his job in office. Keep in mind that this poll is of voters who indicated they supported Trump by a 10-point margin, largely reflecting the actual outcome of the 2024 election in the state. Moreover, this is a 7-point slide in favorability from when we polled Ohio voters in February of this year. Nationally, Trump's approval is at minus 4, with 46 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. The frenzied pace of the first few months of the second Trump presidency has created some unease among many voters as well. Not surprisingly, nearly 9 in 10 Democrats feel more anxious (86 percent). More broadly, majorities of non-whites (59 percent), those 18-44 (53 percent) and women (50 percent), personally feel more anxious with Trump as president. While 24 percent of independents are less anxious with Trump as president, 43 percent are more anxious with him as president. Notably, Trump has changed course on the implementation of his tariffs on several occasions already, likely fueling more uncertainty among voters. Citizens across the country and in red states in particular have conveyed a strong distrust in government and an impulse for change. The advantages Republicans have in the House and Senate may be in jeopardy, given that the president's party has an average midterm loss of 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate from 1934-2018. In 2022, Republicans gained just 8 seats in the House and lost one seat in the Senate. If public opinion continues in this direction, especially in red states, some Republicans will be faced with difficult choices on how closely they align themselves with Trump and his tariff agenda. Robert Alexander is a professor of political science at Bowling Green State University.
