A closer look at the legal debate over Boston's White Stadium project

Neighborhood advocates are alleging the City of Boston is violating the constitution in its pursuit of a public-private partnership with a professional women's soccer team to convert a stadium in a public park into the team's home field.

The city and Boston Unity Soccer Partners LLC, a for-profit company, hope to renovate White Stadium in Franklin Park and make it the home for a National Women's Soccer League team. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu says the stadium would still be available for community use 90% of the time, and that Boston Public Schools, which currently operates the stadium and uses it for athletic fields, cannot afford to renovate it on their own.

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy and advocates from Jamaica Plain, Roxbury and Dorchester sued the city and company saying the project would "illegally transfer the public trust lands" to "a private party."

Part of that lawsuit stands on the idea that the city and company violated Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution in their pursuit of the renovation. The court case is in the early discovery phase.

Article 97, or the Public Lands Preservation Act (PLPA), which voters approved in 1972, empowers the Legislature to order purchase or acquisition of land for conservation, recreation or open space purposes, and it sets a requirement that releasing any property from those protections must be done with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

"That's the letter of the law, taking White Stadium that is being used recreationally by community members and Boston Public Schools kids, even outside of school activities, it's a violation," said Carla-Lisa Caliga, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit who lives near Franklin Park. "And they're talking about food vendors who will have trucks, and 10,000 fans coming in and out of the park. All of that is an encroachment on our recreation space."

In their complaint filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, the plaintiffs cite a 2017 Supreme Judicial Court decision Smith v. City of Westfield, where justices determined a "property used as a little league baseball fields and playground for sixty years was subject to Article 97 process before it could be used by a city as a school."

The complaint then notes that White Stadium has been used for public recreational purposes for over 74 years, and that the city itself lists the stadium as protected by Article 97 in its 2023-2029 Open Space and Recreation Plan released last year.

In their response to the complaint, the city said White Stadium is not legally a public park, but a school building and yard. Boston Public Schools currently use the stadium for their football and track teams and it is managed by the district.

"The construction and use of the Stadium and its grounds as a school building and yard were approved, approximately 75 years ago, by the Trustees of the White Fund, the Mayor, the City Council, the Boston School Committee, and most importantly, the Legislature... The record clearly establishes that the Stadium Property is, and has been for three-quarters of a century, a school building and yard, and not a public park. Article 97 therefore does not apply to it," says the city's response.

In a memorandum responding to the plaintiff's motion to temporarily halt the project — which was ultimately denied in March — Boston Unity Soccer Partners took another approach to the argument about the Constitutional amendment.

The company's memorandum claims the "bureaucratic process" of obtaining a two-thirds vote from the Legislature to comply with Article 97 is "rife with delay" — and ultimately "it is all process...without meaningful substance."

"The inherent delays alone plainly needed to go through these two additional layers of process at the state level — bureaucratic (in the [Executive Office of Environmental Affairs]) and both branches of the Massachusetts Legislature - 'will kill this Project,'" the document says.

Boston Unity Soccer Partners are under pressure to secure a stadium, after they were awarded one of two new franchises in 2023 by the National Women's Soccer League to establish a professional team in greater Boston. To maintain NWSL Boston Expansion Rights — which the team has so far paid over $40 million for — they are required to find an appropriate playing venue for soccer matches, according to court documents.

"They have a time limit, and they're worried a soccer team will not be coming and that's why they're saying they don't want it to be delayed," Caliga said. "But we have the community saying the project should be delayed because it doesn't belong here."

The company's lawyers argue that the Article 97 process would not require the same "meaningful public input" that the city is undergoing through reviews from the Boston Planning and Development Agency, Boston Landmarks Commission and other municipal agencies.

"None of these impactful local engagements and considerations are addressed by the PLPA process to which the Plaintiffs would sentence this Project to imprisonment and failure — none have any place and none play any role in the PLPA review process... Article 97 is process for the sake of process - land traded for land, or land traded for dollars," Boston Unity's memorandum says, the last sentence in bold.

They, along with the city, claim that White Stadium is not dedicated parkland, adding that plaintiffs are attempting to "contort the history and the facts."

The 1940s stadium is dilapidated and some of the bleachers can't be used due to damage from a fire decades ago. Wu said the city plans to use $50 million of public funds to fix the structure, with an additional minimum $30 million from the soccer team to complete renovations.

"The city has indicated that there is $50 million dollars available for this purpose," says a letter from the Emerald Necklace Conservancy sent Monday to Boston City Hall. "The neighborhood groups and organizations that signed onto the attached Statement of Principles would like to partner with the city to renovate the stadium for the Boston Public School athletes and the general public. Many love women’s soccer and support locating a professional women’s soccer team in Boston but this historic park and landmarked stadium in these residential environmental-justice neighborhoods is not an appropriate location and the decision-making process has not been public, thoughtful or legal."