City Council - Post-Audit: Government Accountability, Transparency, & Accessibility Committee Hearing on Docket #0176

October 28, 2025
Watch Video View Transcript
AI Disclaimer: Summaries and transcripts above were created by various AI tools. By their nature, these tools will produce mistakes and inaccuraies. Links to the official meeting recordings are provided for verification. If you find an error, please report it to somervillecivicpulse at gmail dot com.

Podcast Summary

Subscribe to AI-generated podcasts:
RSS Spotify Apple Podcasts

City Council - Post-Audit: Government Accountability, Transparency, & Accessibility Committee Hearing on Docket #0176

Meeting Date: October 28, 2025, at 10:00 AM Governing Body: Boston City Council Type of Meeting: Committee Hearing Attendees:

  • Councilor Julia Mejia (Chair)
  • Councilor Edward Flynn
  • Councilor Benjamin Weber (departed early)
  • Councilor Erin Murphy
  • Shamaiah Turner, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Jeanne Pinado, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Giovanny Valencia, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Alan Langham, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Sherry Dong, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Katie Whewell, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Hansy Better Barraza, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • David Collins, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Rafaela Polanco Garcia, School Committee Member
  • Quoc Tran, School Committee Member
  • Michael O'Neill, School Committee Member
  • Stephen Alkins, School Committee Member
  • Brandon Cardet-Hernandez, School Committee Member
  • Jeri Robinson, School Committee Member
  • Ruthzee Louijeune, Council President
  • Henry Santana, Councilor
  • Sharon Durkan, Councilor
  • Rachel Skerritt, School Committee Member
  • Brian Worrell, Councilor
  • John Fitzgerald, Councilor
  • Liz Breadon, Councilor
  • Enrique PepĂ©n, Councilor
  • Gabriela Coletta Zapata, Councilor
  • Michelle Wu, Mayor
  • Norm Stembridge, Zoning Board of Appeal Member
  • Mary Skipper, Superintendent
  • City Clerk

Executive Summary: The Committee on Post-Audit, Government Accountability, Transparency, and Accessibility convened to discuss Docket #0176, focusing on the decision-making protocols, transparency, and accessibility surrounding the White Stadium renovation project. The hearing highlighted significant concerns regarding the lack of community involvement, the financial implications of the public-private partnership with Boston Unity Soccer Partners (BUSP), and the perceived disregard for alternative, fully public renovation plans. Expert testimony and public comments emphasized the project's potential civil rights implications, the absence of a comprehensive alternatives analysis, and the need for greater accountability from city leadership in ensuring equitable and transparent processes for major public assets.

I. Opening Remarks

  • Councilor Julia Mejia (Chair):
    • Opened the hearing at 10:13 AM on October 28, 2025.
    • Stated the hearing is on Docket #0176, an order for a hearing on government accountability, transparency, and accessibility of decision-making protocols in city government, sponsored by herself, Councilor Worrell, and Councilor Anderson.
    • Emphasized the hearing's focus on process, decision-making, inclusion, and standards of transparency and accountability, specifically as they relate to White Stadium.
    • Clarified that the goal is to audit the city's decision-making protocols, not to debate the need for renovation, but rather "who gets to have a seat at the table."
    • Highlighted recurring resident sentiment of being excluded from decisions impacting them.
    • Expressed anticipation for expert and community testimony, including the NAACP.
    • Mentioned the existence of an alternate proposal that was not adequately considered.
  • Councilor Edward Flynn:
    • Thanked the panel, community leaders, and advocates for their presence.
    • Expressed a desire to listen and learn from impacted residents, emphasizing that "Boston is a city where everybody's voice should be heard and respected."
    • Thanked Councilor Mejia for convening the hearing.
  • Video Presentation:
    • A video was played, featuring various community members expressing concerns about the White Stadium project.
    • Key points from the video:
      • Lack of communication and engagement with residents.
      • Absence of consideration for alternate proposals.
      • Concerns about transportation, parking, and environmental impact (cutting down 150+ trees).
      • Comparison to the Public Garden, suggesting a double standard for communities of color.
      • The process was not equitable or rooted in the people served.

II. Panelist Testimony (First Panel)

  • Panelists Introduced:
    • Shannon Friesen, Retired Appellate Court Judge (virtual)
    • Dan Adams, Architect (in-person)
    • Andrew Zimbalist, Economist (virtual)
    • Ed Burley, NAACP (in-person)
    • Catherine England, NAACP National Board of Directors (virtual, to join later)
    • Renee Stacey Welch, Resident (to join later)
    • Bermina Cherry, Resident (to join later)
  • Andrew Zimbalist, Economist:
    • Corrected pronunciation of his last name: "Zimbalist."
    • Financial Escalation:
      • Initial city budget: $10.5 million.
      • July 2024 estimate: $50 million (city's share).
      • Later 2024 estimate: $91 million.
      • Four months prior to hearing: $172 million (from City Hall document).
    • Concerns with BUSP Plan:
      • NWSL Schedule Conflict: NWSL season (mid-March to mid-November) does not allow football on natural grass fields, making the stadium inaccessible for Boston high school football teams during their season.
        • Quote: Rocco Zizza, Boston Latin Academy football coach: "that always has been our home field. We're basically a team without a home now."
      • Short Lease Term: Proposed 10-year lease with BUSP is "unheard of" for a new stadium, typically 30+ years. Raises concerns about city being left with maintenance if BUSP leaves.
      • Stadium Capacity: 11,000 seats are too small; second smallest in NWSL. Median NWSL stadium size is 21,100. Boston is a major market with potential for larger attendance.
      • Alternative Venues: Suggested sharing Gillette Stadium or the new MLS stadium in Everett as viable alternatives, noting nine NWSL teams already share MLS stadiums.
      • BPS Renovation Cost: A first-class BPS facility could cost $5-15 million. Cited Cauley Stadium in Lowell ($8 million renovation) and a 2025 study for high school football stadiums ($690,000 - $1.63 million).
      • Economic Development: Scholarship "virtually unanimously" concludes sports stadiums do not promote economic development due to "substitution effect" (spending shifts, not increases) and "leakage effect" (revenue leaves the city).
      • Private Funding Precedent: Boston has a history of 100% privately funded sports stadiums (Gillette, Boston Garden, Fenway Park), and the Everett soccer stadium proposal is also 100% privately funded.
      • Community Concerns: Residents in Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, Mattapan, and Roslindale have significant concerns about environment, noise, traffic, and parking, which have not been adequately addressed.
    • Conclusion: The BUSP plan "does not meet this standard" for judicious and cautious deployment of city resources during a budget crisis.
  • Dan Adams, Architect:
    • Represented Lanning Studio and Northeastern University School of Architecture.
    • Franklin Park Action Plan: Referenced this multi-year community engagement effort as a guide for the alternative plan.
      • Key goals: respecting community access, natural resources (trees), and free movement.
      • Ambition: Playstead and White Stadium integrated for diverse recreation.
    • Critique of Current Proposal:
      • Becomes a "gated operation" with controlled access, focused on revenue generation, opposing the Action Plan's call for openness.
      • Architecture scale is "much more significant" than natural landscape, changing park character.
    • Alternative Plan (Public Uses Focus):
      • Focused exclusively on public uses, eliminating private revenue-generating components.
      • Initially aimed to preserve the west grandstand, but demolition necessitated a new scenario.
      • Preserves the facade wall of the west grandstand for historic quality.
      • Public Benefits Preserved: Seating, track, fields, locker rooms, weight rooms, sports medicine facility.
      • Private Elements Stripped: Bar/lounge, restaurants, excess seating, private storage, private event/media center, private professional locker rooms/medical rooms, private club seating, private stadium operations rooms.
      • Budget (Vermeulen's estimate): Totaling approximately $64.5 - $64.6 million.
        • West grandstand preservation: ~$40 million.
        • Track, field, east grandstand, landscape improvements: Remaining balance.
      • Phased Construction: Initial phase of ~$12 million to get field, track, and small seating operational quickly for community use.
      • Comparative Images: Showed red footprint of current proposed stadium vs. alternative, highlighting integration with landscape, improved tree cover, and seasonal use.
    • Conclusion: The alternative design concept preserves public uses and advances a naturalistic, connected landscape, contrasting with the "inherently large-scale architecture" and divisions created by the current stadium.
  • Shannon Friesen, Retired Superior Court Judge:
    • Clarified she was a trial court judge, not appellate.
    • Legal Implications of Decision-Making:
      • Lack of community involvement goes beyond "slight and insult" and has legal implications.
      • Framed the issue as a civil rights matter: "whether Boston will add its name to that retreat or draw the line here, right here in Franklin Park."
      • Many procedural steps were "foregone, gone around, skipped altogether."
    • Applicable Laws:
      • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act: Forbids racial discrimination in federally funded programs. Boston Public Schools (owner of White Stadium) receives substantial federal assistance, bringing the situation under federal purview. Private citizens/organizations can utilize this statute.
      • Environmental Justice: Federal and state aims to correct historical injustices in Black and Brown communities. Views the project as "a taking of a huge asset to communities that are largely black and brown."
      • Equal Protection and Due Process: The pattern of conduct denies residents these rights.
      • Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and Equal Rights Act: State-level protections against discrimination by agencies acting under color of law.
    • Call to Action: Urged looking beyond politics to a legal framework, emphasizing the national moment of civil rights rollbacks. Stated the community has the power to "change course."
  • Ed Burley, NAACP (Chair of Legal Redress, Co-Chair of Education Committee):
    • Public Option Benefits: Allows both BPS football and soccer teams to play in the fall.
    • Critique of Truncated Process:
      • Expedited due to NWSL franchise requirement for a playing venue.
      • Not a "best practice around procurement."
      • Acknowledged the franchise is awarded, but questioned the location.
    • Unexplored Options/Unprotected Public Interest:
      • Lease Terms: BUSP has sole discretion to extend the 10-year lease (up to 30 years). The city is "powerless" to stop it if public interest isn't met (e.g., traffic, national broadcasts).
      • Cost Sharing: City is paying 100% of its half (East Grandstand, track). Argued BUSP should pay at least half due to overall benefits they receive and trade-offs for BPS (no fall sports).
    • Current Proposal Issues: No cost control for the city, no rights to terminate after 10 years.
    • Benefits of Public Option: Cheaper, allows both football and soccer in fall.
    • Call for Re-evaluation: Given changed circumstances (traffic plan unresolved, threat of litigation/appeal), it's a good time to "take another look" and "make sure we're doing it right."
    • Acknowledged Franklin Park Coalition's efforts and Franklin Park Defenders/ENC's advocacy.

III. Councilor Questions to Panelists

  • Councilor Edward Flynn:
    • Asked Judge Friesen if the issue is a civil rights issue impacting Black and Hispanic residents, and if the lack of public outcry from residents/councilors is discouraging.
    • Judge Friesen's Response: Agreed it is difficult for people to stand up against power/money. Stated that more hearings like this are needed to foster opposition and consider alternatives.
    • Asked Dan Adams and Ed Burley why residents weren't heard/respected despite government buzzwords of transparency and accountability.
    • Dan Adams' Response: Referenced the Franklin Park Action Plan as a "beautiful document" from a multi-year community effort, providing a clear roadmap. Stated he couldn't speak to why that process was broken.
    • Ed Burley's Response: Suggested the pro soccer opportunity "landed on the administration's lap," and the mistake was not comparing the public-private partnership with a plan reflecting the Franklin Park Action Plan.
    • Andrew Zimbalist's Response: Suggested money is a factor, noting the Franklin Park area is a national development zone with capital gains benefits for investors. Also mentioned retaining the grandstand wall for "rebuild" classification to avoid regulatory hurdles.
  • Councilor Benjamin Weber:
    • Expressed he would leave early for a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing on a family shelter, drawing a parallel to community process concerns.
    • Stated support for the stadium due to BPS needs, aiming to make a largely unusable facility usable.
    • Question to Andrew Zimbalist: Asked if his economic development analysis applied to a BPS facility not expected to make money.
    • Andrew Zimbalist's Response: Reaffirmed his analysis applies because half the stadium project is for a professional team, and BUSP claims economic impact.
    • Question to Judge Friesen: Asked to connect the dots on civil rights issues, given his view that the stadium is a BPS facility and two Superior Court judges found it would remain so.
    • Judge Friesen's Response: Explained that the issue is not occurring in a vacuum but within a "pattern of conduct" where the community (a protected class) has been excluded and the stadium/park neglected over years. The changes will drastically alter use and access, making it a civil rights issue.
  • Councilor Erin Murphy:
    • Thanked community members for their persistence despite roadblocks.
    • Emphasized the importance of transparent, accountable, and accessible decision-making, especially for major policies and projects.
    • Stated her role as a conduit for residents to City Hall.
    • Opposed the current approach to White Stadium, calling for clear plans on traffic, parking, and community access.
    • Critiqued the use of "scare tactics" or "emergency" to bypass rules, advocating for consistent guidelines across all projects and neighborhoods.

IV. Chair's Questions to Panelists

  • Councilor Julia Mejia:
    • To Judge Friesen:
      • What should transparent and accountable public decision-making look like for a major public asset?
      • How do courts view government bodies demonstrating fairness and community consideration?
      • Judge Friesen's Response: The city must comply with "due process, both substantive and procedural." This includes meetings, hearings, votes, environmental justice assessments, and racial disparity impact assessments. Courts look for adherence to these codified requirements, ensuring communities are heard.
    • To Dan Adams:
      • From a design/planning standpoint, how should the city evaluate multiple design/development options?
      • Where were missed opportunities for transparency and collaboration in the city's process?
      • Why was the public-private approach put forward, and who benefits most?
      • What would it take procedurally and financially for the city to consider a fully public plan?
      • Dan Adams' Response: Emphasized "alternatives analysis" as a typical procedure at federal/state levels, evaluating environmental, cultural, and physical impacts of alternatives. The circumvention of this process before an RFP is "unusual." Stated the current proposal "outsizes the demands of a youth or school or neighborhood use," with a "significant portion" benefiting professional sports. Estimated $130 million "over billed" from the public.
      • Follow-up Question: Asked about "private" elements in the current plan (beer garden, professional locker rooms, etc.) and if the public would have access.
      • Dan Adams' Response: Confirmed that from their analysis, the public would not anticipate access to those resources.
    • To Ed Burley:
      • What message does this process send to historically excluded communities?
      • What steps should the city take to rebuild trust with Black and Brown residents?
      • Ed Burley's Response: Suggested leaders can "fall in love with an idea" but must test it with impacted people. The idea of combining public and private solves some problems but creates others, requiring careful handling.
    • To Andrew Zimbalist:
      • What does financial transparency mean for large public-private projects, and what standards should the public expect?
      • Andrew Zimbalist's Response:
        • Evaluate alternative uses of money (e.g., $83 million difference between White Stadium and Lowell Stadium).
        • Mayor Wu should share data, including moderate and lowest-case scenarios, not just worst-case.
        • Caution against cost overruns, as projects often start with understated budgets and add features.
        • The stadium component should have a separate budget, not just be part of BPS capital budget.

V. Public Testimony (First Round - Youth Voices)

  • Yoendi (Madison Park): White Stadium should be for BPS athletes; games in city center reduce traffic. Compared privatization to gentrification, selling land for profit.
  • Chris Snell (John D. O'Brien): Against privatization; White Stadium has always been public for BPS sports, which are already underfunded. Taking the field away would hurt them.
  • Kaden (John D. O'Brien): Believes renovations are needed but not demolition. Should be fully public, allowing private football leagues like Pop Warner to use it.
  • Ella Simone (Dearborn STEM Academy): Everybody should have access; shouldn't be privately owned. BPS students are displaced to Madison Park, causing crowding, especially during track season.
  • Persia (John D. O'Brien School): Keep White Stadium public for students; it's an outlet and "something personally just for the BPS students instead of sharing with another community."
  • Esmeralda (John D. O'Brien): Against renovations; White Stadium is a public space for BPS students' sports and graduations. Taking it away removes a space for different events.
  • Glory Martinez (Masquerade Community College): White Stadium should only be used by BPS students for sports. Against private use, as it takes away a "gigantic resource" for Boston youth. Shared positive memories from BLA at White Stadium.

VI. Public Testimony (Second Round - Community Members)

  • Senator Dianne Wilkerson:
    • Expressed disappointment in Councilor Weber's departure and comments.
    • Recalled a June 2023 meeting where questions were raised about a community benefits plan already agreed upon before the RFP deadline.
    • Stated there have been many community meetings, but the press doesn't cover them, leading to a perception of no "uproar."
    • Cited an August meeting at Trotter School with 40 testimonies, only one in support (from a paid consultant for Boston Legacy).
    • Criticized Mayor Wu for refusing to meet with impacted communities while advocating for Charlestown's environmental issues related to another stadium.
    • Alleged "complicity" and "retaliation" against those raising questions, citing a call from the Chief of IGR asking why people listen to her.
    • Called it a "civil rights violation" and warned of increased illness due to the transportation plan.
    • Emphasized that protocols, policies, and procedures have been "non-existent" and "disrespectful."
    • Stated residents are "exhausted, but we're not going anywhere."
  • James Mealy (Boston Resident, BPS Graduate, Franklin Park Defenders):
    • Focused on "who benefits" from the city's plan.
    • Benefits for Soccer Team Owners: Subsidized home stadium on public land with taxpayer dollars; their business plan depends on public assets.
    • Benefits for BPS Students: Mixed; can only use parts when the team isn't, and BPS football teams can't play regular season games due to field damage concerns. Many areas (luxury boxes, lounges) inaccessible.
    • Benefits for Boston Residents: Hard to identify. Taxpayers fund half the stadium. No traffic or environmental impact studies.
    • Impacts: 20 professional games annually will snarl roads, displace residents, and affect enjoyment of the park.
    • Concluded that residents deserve to know the impact, but the Mayor "evidently doesn't think so."
  • Drew Curtis:
    • Lives across from the stadium; noted impacted properties are where Black residents live.
    • Stated many people, including Councilor Weber, don't believe it's the right place for a professional women's stadium.
    • Heard arguments that it's the "only way to get this done for the kids," but believes this is untrue.
    • Stated the project is "overbuilt and overimpacted for the needs of the community and underbuilt for the needs of the soccer league."
    • Questioned why this is presented as the "only way to get this done."
  • Sarah Friedman (JP, Franklin Park Defender):
    • "One option is not a choice." The project was announced as a "done deal," precluding choice.
    • Compared putting a pro stadium in Franklin Park to putting Yankee Stadium in Central Park.
    • Mentioned Mayor Curley's transfer of parkland to schools, but it remained public.
    • Critiqued the "public-private partnership" as private money dictating terms (e.g., cutting trees).
    • Suggested people don't protest locally as much as nationally because they value their relationship with the city and don't want to "burn bridges."
  • Beth Abelay:
    • Thanked councilors for the hearing on transparency and accountability, which she stated has been absent.
    • No comparative analysis or alternatives analysis.
    • Public meetings were "siloed," allowing discussion of only one topic at a time.
    • Still no transportation plan or traffic analysis, despite repeated requests from the public and City Council.
    • Called the administration's claims of transparency and openness "foul."
  • Diane Valley (Charlestown):
    • Concerned that if White Stadium can be privatized, "no other parcel in the city of Boston is protected."
    • Drew parallels to Pier 5 in Charlestown, also facing private equity takeover of public land.
    • Agreed with the economist that there is "no public benefit for these private enterprises," with benefits going to private pockets and burdens on the neighborhood.
    • Called for a "full and independent cost-risk assessment" and "full disclosure" on cost projections, leasing documents, operating agreements, and event schedules.
    • Stated it's "misinformation" that school kids can use it, as "nobody" plays after November.
    • Concerned about MEPA Chapter Article 97 screening being "subverted."
  • Alan Ahern (Jamaica Plain):
    • Lives near the park, has dedicated decades to it.
    • Referenced the historical "redlining" context of parkland being sold off by Curley without proper process or "just compensation."
    • Described the current process as "Mr. and Mrs. White Stadium" (controlling partner and developer).
    • Cited an email in November 2022 (before Thanksgiving/Christmas) indicating a contract was already in place.
    • Described public meetings as "one hot, angry meeting" followed by 62 "Zoom or Pixel meetings" with no chat and limited speaking time.
    • Filed FOIA requests for pro forma financials, BPS plans, bonding discussions, traffic modeling, and studies, but received "no results."
    • Stated 85% of stadium seating will be provided by BPS, questioning the process given this contribution.
  • Karen (declined to speak, yielded time).
  • Kate Phelps (Roxbury):
    • Thanked councilors for continuing the fight, calling them "our only voices."
    • Expressed feeling "disrespected and unheard and overwhelmed by the impact of lawless, ruthless, evil and illegal activities."
    • Criticized Mayor Wu for "hiding the plan, carrying it out, and terrifying people who oppose her."
    • Mentioned the firing of the head of the Landmarks Commission for attempting an environmental impact assessment.
    • Urged councilors to continue their work, noting growing public opposition as more people learn the facts.
  • Melissa Hamel (Jamaica Plain, Franklin Park Defenders):
    • Echoed appreciation for councilors' support.
    • Described the process as "daunting" against a "really great PR machine."
    • Franklin Park Defenders' grassroots efforts show that people believe it's a "done deal" but want to be heard once informed.
    • Criticized the administration for shutting down in-person meetings after the Trotter School meeting, moving to controlled Zoom meetings.
    • Stated the movement is growing as people realize they "still have a chance."
  • Djamil (last name not provided):
    • Grateful for the opportunity to speak for open green space, which is crucial given "intense density."
    • Emphasized respect for habitat and the environment, stating "this planet doesn't belong to humans."
    • Called the situation "modern day colonialism," extending beyond White Stadium to Shattuck and other areas.
  • Edwina (last name O'Donnell):
    • Shared personal history of growing up near Franklin Park and using it.
    • Recalled CYO Music Festival at White Stadium in the 1960s.
    • Stated that after the Archdiocese pulled out, the school department and city "disinvested" in White Stadium and Franklin Park as the demographics changed from white to "light brown to dark brown to black."
    • Predicted that if the "Taj Mahal" is built for Boston Unity, and they move to Brockton, BPS will not maintain it, repeating the historical pattern of neglect.
  • Rodney Singleton (Roxbury):
    • Lived in Roxbury for 64 years, remembered urban renewal and busing, which were "at its core about racism."
    • Called it "unconscionable" to solve racism with "more racism" by funding a private organization while BPS schools "crumble."
    • Framed the issue as "fundamentally about equal protection and the 14th Amendment."
    • Criticized Mayor Wu for failing on equity, resiliency, and affordability by cutting trees, making the park unrecognizable, and repeating historical patterns of racism.
    • Urged support for the Emerald Necklace approach (fully public).
  • Lawrence Hutchison (Jamaica Plain, BPS Parent/Teacher, Franklin Park Neighbor):
    • Stated that from the beginning, they were told it was "too late to consider alternatives."
    • Grateful for the continued conversation, believing "it's never the wrong time to do the right thing."
    • Three reasons for public alternative:
      • Franklin Park is a park, not real estate; public parkland should be protected from large-scale for-profit construction.
      • The money "doesn't add up."
      • The risk: 10-year lease is a "short-term solution," questioning what happens next.
    • Described the project as a "white elephant inside a Trojan horse," with a large, slipped-in private component.
  • Kaliga (last name not provided):
    • Disappointed Councilor Weber left.
    • Called the city's claim that a private-public partnership is the only way to renovate White Stadium "disinformation" and a "logical fallacy" (false dichotomy).
    • Stated that an architect (Alan Iyer) and the Emerald Necklace Conservancy have formulated plans for a fully public renovation, saving "tens of millions of our tax dollars."
    • Criticized using tax dollars to subsidize a sports team, beer garden, jumbotron, and luxury boxes that are not for BPS kids or community use.
    • Emphasized that the trust for White Stadium specifies its purpose is for public education and community use.
  • Luis Alisa (68 Seavers Street, Roxbury, former NAACP Boston President, Franklin Park Defender, Franklin Park Coalition founding member, Garrison Trotter President):
    • Thanked councilors for addressing an issue affecting the "whole city."
    • Called the project a "fraud," "corrupt," "abusive," and "filled with lies."
    • Concerned about people "puppet[ing] or parrot[ing] the lies."
    • Stated it's "not about the children of the Boston public schools" or residents, but about taking $100 million from Madison Park to support a private equity firm.
    • Has sued the city before and knows how to make it "workable for everyone."
    • Urged councilors to continue their work to "dislodge and bring to light the fraud and the corruption."
  • Marjorie Skillman:
    • Raised concerns about the cab voucher system, stating only five authorized companies are on the list, excluding others.
    • Experienced refusal of service to her area, highlighting transportation issues.
    • Connected this to the potential worsening of transportation with the White Stadium project.
  • Christine Acevedo (Dorchester):
    • Thanked councilors for the hearing.
    • Stated it has been "extremely difficult to try to make our voices heard."
    • The process has been "disheveled" instead of involving community input.
    • Believes a new stadium is needed, but "what's been proposed is not what we actually want."
    • Stated that despite being a soccer fan, it "does not belong in Franklin Park."
    • Committed to continuing the fight.
  • Tayla Andre (Mattapan):
    • Asked if supporters have been to Foxborough during a game, highlighting traffic concerns on highways, let alone residential streets.
    • Noted the absence of people of color in the development team on site, despite diversity goals.
    • Questioned why construction is proceeding while discussions are ongoing.
    • Recalled waiting for a concession stand at White Stadium since childhood (43 years old now).
    • Raised concerns about stadium costs, food prices, and quality.
    • Called for an auditor on site to ensure minimums are met and to track fees/fines, suggesting funds go to Madison Park.
  • Dakota Jones (In Order Business, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain native, Roslindale resident):
    • Acknowledged challenges, frustrations, and confusion.
    • Spoke about procurement and workforce diversity on the project.
    • Stated "meaningful wins" have already occurred, with minority-owned demolition contractors, and diverse local businesses for Porta Potties, temporary offices, and dumpsters.
    • Emphasized her commitment to ensuring diversity and inclusion if the project proceeds.
    • Stated the project team prioritizes diversity.
    • Councilor Mejia affirmed commitment to supplier diversity regardless of the plan.
  • Jacob Borah (Franklin Park Coalition Board):
    • Thanked councilors for the hearing, acknowledging over 60 community meetings.
    • Expressed concerns about the Emerald Necklace Conservancy's (ENC) proposed alternative.
    • Shortcomings of ENC Proposal:
      • Virtually unused during non-BPS summer months.
      • Too hot without an awning.
      • Terrible sight lines due to eight-lane track and ground-level stands.
      • Loss of the Grove area.
      • Use of plastic field turf (bad for health/environment, microplastics).
      • Loss of professionally maintained grass field by the pro team.
      • Price tag doesn't include 10+ years of maintenance/operating costs (which BPS isn't prepared for, but soccer team would take on).
      • Does nothing to bring future funding or ancillary benefits to Franklin Park.
      • Does not address transportation/parking challenges for BPS events.
      • Called the proposal "ugly" and not suitable for Franklin Park's beauty.
    • Criticized ENC for "misrepresentation" of the city's plan as privatization, undermining their credibility.
  • Connie Forbes (Franklin Park resident):
    • Lives three blocks from Franklin Park.
    • Concerned about parking permits for residents, limiting family/friends visits.
    • No communication on transportation or parking plans.
    • Neighbors are moving due to dread of impact.
    • Highlighted severe health conditions in the community (COPD, asthma, diabetes).
    • Called the project "inappropriate in size" and an infringement on residents' rights as taxpayers.

VII. Panelist Testimony (Second Panel)

  • Renee Stacey Welch (Resident):
    • Thanked councilors for support.
    • Criticized Councilor Weber's comments and departure, calling him a "dictator" who "spit in the people's face."
    • Called the White Stadium project a "demolition," not a redevelopment, as only one wall remains.
    • Stated the project dismantles "a vital part of Boston's civic and cultural identity," replacing a public legacy with private interest.
    • Lamented the loss of public history and community connection.
    • Predicted negative impacts: traffic, loss of quiet enjoyment, need to plan lives around game days.
    • Reiterated desire for White Stadium renovation "for us and us as a community."
    • Warned against "performative equity" where Black and Brown workers are visible initially but invisible long-term, calling it "transactional."
  • Bermina Cherry (Mattapan Resident):
    • Challenged the city's claim that a private-public partnership is the only way to renovate White Stadium, calling it "disinformation" and a "logical fallacy" (false dichotomy).
    • Cited the Emerald Necklace Conservancy's public option, which included expert architectural and pricing assessments, and land use plans.
    • Criticized the city's refusal to conduct an environmental review, despite legal mandates.
    • Stated the city's claim of "dozens of community meetings" does not equate to genuine community process.
    • Referenced the Franklin Park Action Plan as an example of good community process, which emphasized access, public ownership, and accessibility for all.
    • Accused the city of using the Franklin Park Action Plan as justification while ignoring its core tenets.
    • Stated the mayor's office refuses to acknowledge the ENC's alternative plan.
    • Concluded that two years from "conversations to complete demolition" is not what community process looks like for a project of this caliber.

VIII. Closing Remarks

  • Councilor Edward Flynn:
    • Thanked Councilor Mejia for her leadership and fighting for the community.
    • Emphasized the importance of treating residents with respect and listening to them.
    • Expressed regret that other council colleagues were not present to listen and advocate.
    • Stated that "democracy is about showing up" and respect for residents.
    • Apologized on behalf of absent colleagues for their "lack of attendance and their lack of respect."
  • Councilor Julia Mejia (Chair):
    • Expressed gratitude for community members' persistence.
    • Thanked the NAACP, Emerald Necklace, Park Defenders, and her colleagues.
    • Reiterated her commitment to working alongside the community, drawing on her background as a community organizer.
    • Rejected the notion of only one way forward, emphasizing the availability of funds and the need for "political will."
    • Stated that a "Fenway Park in Franklin Park" is not feasible or desirable.
    • Clarified that opposition to the current plan is not opposition to renovating White Stadium, but a fight for "what is best" for children and families (quality experience in a publicly owned facility, upholding civil rights).
    • Affirmed her belief that "it's not about politics, it's about the people."
    • Adjourned the hearing on Docket #0176.

Last updated: Nov 15, 2025

Back to Meetings