New England Revolution Stadium | 173 Alford Street | Boston-Everett

Charlie_mta said:
I agree.
Click to expand...
Being tangentially familiar with the volume of grease that flows on that side of the Mystic, we can all be confident that: the Kraft family has been invited as a player to secure loans and to bring their good name, the public input/community outreach/CLF lawsuits will not play a significant role, and Wu is being handed her hat with regard to what will ultimately be built.

Remember when Wynn was photographed standing on an unnamed, generationally polluted pier in a city that half the residents of the state couldn’t point to on a map? Remember when Boston fought hard for Suffolk Downs? Remember when there would never be an events venue on the other side of Broadway?

What does get built, whatever it is, will be a net gain for Wynn Resorts bottom line.
 
Wonk said:
Being tangentially familiar with the volume of grease that flows on that side of the Mystic, we can all be confident that: the Kraft family has been invited as a player to secure loans and to bring their good name, the public input/community outreach/CLF lawsuits will not play a significant role, and Wu is being handed her hat with regard to what will ultimately be built.

Remember when Wynn was photographed standing on an unnamed, generationally polluted pier in a city that half the residents of the state couldn’t point to on a map? Remember when Boston fought hard for Suffolk Downs? Remember when there would never be an events venue on the other side of Broadway?

What does get built, whatever it is, will be a net gain for Wynn Resorts bottom line.
Click to expand...
Welcome to aB, homie. Your candor is refreshing.
 
Wonk said:
Being tangentially familiar with the volume of grease that flows on that side of the Mystic, we can all be confident that: the Kraft family has been invited as a player to secure loans and to bring their good name, the public input/community outreach/CLF lawsuits will not play a significant role, and Wu is being handed her hat with regard to what will ultimately be built.

Remember when Wynn was photographed standing on an unnamed, generationally polluted pier in a city that half the residents of the state couldn’t point to on a map? Remember when Boston fought hard for Suffolk Downs? Remember when there would never be an events venue on the other side of Broadway?

What does get built, whatever it is, will be a net gain for Wynn Resorts bottom line.
Click to expand...

Boston lost the Suffolk Downs fight (which was, in the long run, good) because only one license existed and the Commission could award it. Completely different leverage this time.

Greasing the skids works in Everett, but once again: Boston. Must. Approve. This. Stadium.
 
Equilibria said:
Greasing the skids works in Everett, but once again: Boston. Must. Approve. This. Stadium.
Click to expand...

City of Boston signs agreement with Wynn Resorts | Boston.gov

Revenue - Massachusetts Gaming Commission (massgaming.com)

$68M paid over fifteen years on an operation that had a gaming revenue of $62M this past October is grease.

Without going thru the history of this thread and this thread too deeply, they show both you and I are correct. Boston will need to approve what gets built at 10 Dexter Street in Everett. And it will after the grease is applied.
 
Last edited:
Wonk said:
Being tangentially familiar with the volume of grease that flows on that side of the Mystic, we can all be confident that: the Kraft family has been invited as a player to secure loans and to bring their good name, the public input/community outreach/CLF lawsuits will not play a significant role, and Wu is being handed her hat with regard to what will ultimately be built.

Remember when Wynn was photographed standing on an unnamed, generationally polluted pier in a city that half the residents of the state couldn’t point to on a map? Remember when Boston fought hard for Suffolk Downs? Remember when there would never be an events venue on the other side of Broadway?

What does get built, whatever it is, will be a net gain for Wynn Resorts bottom line.
Click to expand...

I really don't understand what point you think you're even making. The Kraft family hasn't been invited to anything -- they own the team. Michelle Wu is properly representing her citizens by ensuring they get a voice in something that is built in their city (and yes, the stadium would be in Boston and would require upgrades to Boston infrastructure). The $68MM Boston received from Wynn wasn't "grease," it was a component of state law that recognizes the major impact a massive project like a casino has on the surrounding communities.

Like, yes, the City of Boston will have a say in whether a stadium gets build on land it owns on which it's currently illegal to build a stadium. Money will change hands between private investors and public entities to support the massive environmental cleanup and infrastructure that will be required. You haven't uncovered some grand conspiracy; this is called governance.
 
Last edited:
BronsonShore said:
I really don't understand what point you think you're even making. The Kraft family hasn't been invited to anything -- they own the team. Michelle Wu is properly representing her citizens by ensuring they get a voice in something that is built in their city (and yes, the stadium would be in Boston and would require upgrades to Boston infrastructure). The $68MM Boston received from Wynn wasn't "grease," it was a component of state law that recognizes the major impact a massive project like a casino has on the surrounding communities.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've heard of a City/Town get something from anything that's on the border until the Casino.
 
BronsonShore said:
I really don't understand what point you think you're even making.
Click to expand...
To clarify, there was feeling in recent posts that Boston wanted to either to have a significant voice in what gets developed, and if it felt it couldn’t get that to scupper it all together. The point I was trying to make was that neither of those two outcomes was likely.

The manner that the City of Everett, the Kraft Group, and Wynn Resorts have operated has not been to surprise or bypass Boston, but to warn them. The relationship the city had with Wynn during the casino development was confrontational. The outcome ended, mostly, in Wynn’s favor. Say what you will about $68M, but I think most people on this board would agree that $4.5M per year for fifteen years is not going to get much in transportation improvements. The casino opened in 2019. There is no pedestrian bridge and no Sullivan Square reconfiguration being paid for by Wynn, and the power station redevelopment won’t fund them either.

Do I think they would like Boston as a partner? Yes. Do I think they would agree to letting Boston have the final say about what gets built, or whether anything gets built at all? No. Most of the property is not in Boston, and a design that would avoid the portion that is could be proposed.

Was the Kraft group invited? Wynn owns the property. So, if the Revs want to play in stadium there then the Kraft’s will need to partner with them.

Is Mayor Wu doing her job? Yes. So were Mayors Menino and Walsh, but Boston still left a lot on the table during the casino development. The amount of the final agreement, in my opinion, was a face-saving gesture given to Walsh after the city’s last lawsuit was dismissed.

And grease versus governance? Well, you say potato …
 
Wonk said:
Do I think they would like Boston as a partner? Yes. Do I think they would agree to letting Boston have the final say about what gets built, or whether anything gets built at all? No. Most of the property is not in Boston, and a design that would avoid the portion that is could be proposed.
Click to expand...

Then why not just do that in the first place? It's a genuine question I have about this - why did they not just try to subdivide the parcel off the bat to avoid dealing with Boston at all? That's what Wynn did.

There's no reason to pay a dollar you don't have to to Boston (from the perspective of a for-profit business), and using a parcel partially located there gives them total leverage over you.
 
Everett is looking down the barrel of a big reduction in property tax revenue because the generating station is being shut down. $300 million was already chopped off the assessment in 2023. Even more interesting is that Encore pays no property taxes, but pays the city $30 million in lieu of taxes, No idea what the $30 million represents: the value of city services?

https://everettleader.com/2022/12/01/2023-tax-rate-set/

A years earlier article from this newspaper about Encore deciding to pay the PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) to the state, rather than to the city directly. May help explain why the city is apparently seeking to have the casino pay property taxes on any expansion.

https://everettleader.com/2020/07/29/encore-must-be-put-on-notice/
 
Equilibria said:
why did they not just try to subdivide the parcel off the bat to avoid dealing with Boston at all?
Click to expand...
My guess is they can't practically do that. For one, if they tried to build solely in Everett, they wouldn't be able to build any entrance on Alford St. You could come up with some odd scheme to try to make that work. But if most people are supposed to walk from Sullivan, then this stadium pretty obviously needs an entrance on Alford. Also, they have to remove the existing electrical substations, and those span the city borders. Individual pieces of equipment look like they span the the border. They can't really just clean up the Everett side and leave the Boston side untouched. So it just doesn't look practical to subdivide the parcel to cut out Boston.
 
Last edited:
The Massachusetts House passed a $3 billion spending bill today. No indication the stadium in Everett provisions were restored to the bill before passage.
 
stellarfun said:
The Massachusetts House passed a $3 billion spending bill today. No indication the stadium in Everett provisions were restored to the bill before passage.
Click to expand...
And probably won’t be taken up until the next legislative session.
 
Another Globe article.

Basically, everyone is singing the same tune: 'there needs to be a public process'. But the mayor of Everett would make the public process contingent on the legislature first de-designating the site as a DPA.
{Mayor] DeMaria said last week that a public process on the stadium proposal would begin once state lawmakers approve legislation to remove the parcel from its status as a Designated Port Area, which limits nonindustrial uses. The change is needed before a stadium proposal could move forward.
Click to expand...

www.bostonglobe.com

âEngagement needs to start nowâ: Amid push for Everett soccer stadium, calls for public input grow - The Boston Globe

As talks continue over bringing Robert Kraft’s New England Revolution to Everett, many local advocates say the public needs to have a chance to weigh in.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

ETPVWQXWAZAKTIDK7L7WLLET2M.jpg

Image courtesy of the Globe.
^^^ Site of the proposed stadium.

I don't think the legislature is going to de-designate the DPA without first engaging in a public process, even if a limited one. The city of Boston is not going to sit mute at public hearings at the State House on a de-designation, the proposed stadium, and its potential impact on Boston.

And perhaps DeMaria's statement as recorded in the Globe lacks context.
 
stellarfun said:
Another Globe article.

Basically, everyone is singing the same tune: 'there needs to be a public process'. But the mayor of Everett would make the public process contingent on the legislature first de-designating the site as a DPA.


www.bostonglobe.com

âEngagement needs to start nowâ: Amid push for Everett soccer stadium, calls for public input grow - The Boston Globe

As talks continue over bringing Robert Kraft’s New England Revolution to Everett, many local advocates say the public needs to have a chance to weigh in.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

ETPVWQXWAZAKTIDK7L7WLLET2M.jpg

Image courtesy of the Globe.
^^^ Site of the proposed stadium.

I don't think the legislature is going to de-designate the DPA without first engaging in a public process, even if a limited one. The city of Boston is not going to sit mute at public hearings at the State House on a de-designation, the proposed stadium, and its potential impact on Boston.

And perhaps DeMaria's statement as recorded in the Globe lacks context.
Click to expand...
Amazing how the efforts to clean up and rehab this dystopian industrial hellscape can run into so much opposition.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Amazing how the efforts to clean up and rehab this dystopian industrial hellscape can run into so much opposition.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of it is that to many nearby residents, a stadium is something that will (To them) only bring more traffic and crowding on the roads, buses, and trains, and next to no benefit to them. (Unless they're big Revs fans.) The talk about the city's 'waterfront' seems to suggest that what people really want is some kind of green space, à la Esplanade, as well as a more comprehensive development with new shops, offices, housing, etc.

Given the amount of space available (It's about as large as Charlestown, for pete's sake), I see no reason why these need to be mutually exclusive. What really needs to happen here is a master plan, something that can take all of this into account rather than just "A stadium would be neat"
 
TheRatmeister said:
I think a lot of it is that to many nearby residents, a stadium is something that will (To them) only bring more traffic and crowding on the roads, buses, and trains, and next to no benefit to them. (Unless they're big Revs fans.) The talk about the city's 'waterfront' seems to suggest that what people really want is some kind of green space, à la Esplanade, as well as a more comprehensive development with new shops, offices, housing, etc.

Given the amount of space available (It's about as large as Charlestown, for pete's sake), I see no reason why these need to be mutually exclusive. What really needs to happen here is a master plan, something that can take all of this into account rather than just "A stadium would be neat"
Click to expand...
I agree that a master plan for the area would be good. But there has to be a point where studying a proposed project turns into studying it to death, also known as analysis paralysis. As a civil engineer, I learned that "Perfect is the enemy of good.". There has to be an acceptable level of risk taken to get a project to construction. Yes, study the traffic impacts and mitigate for those, but let's try to move it forward.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I agree that a master plan for the area would be good. But there has to be a point where studying a proposed project turns into studying it to death, also known as analysis paralysis. As a civil engineer, I learned that "Perfect is the enemy of good.". There has to be an acceptable level of risk taken to get a project to construction. Yes, study the traffic impacts and mitigate for those, but let's try to move it forward.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it hasn't been studied enough, or that traffic isn't taken into account, it's that ultimately a major stakeholder, Everett residents, are largely unsatisfied with the proposal. So long as that remains true it's probably not happening. Planning is an inclusive process, and as much as it's frustrating sometimes, you can't just decree that a stadium will go somewhere, this is a democracy.

The solution here isn't to study, it's to imagine new possibilities for the area beyond a stadium and make designs that account for this. It's the largest essentially blank slate you'll find in the region, there's plenty of room for new ideas and solutions that can work, or at least be acceptable, to most people. Things that could be included to fit this criteria:
  • New housing
  • New higher paying office/biotech jobs and not just low-pay stadium ones
  • Better transport links to Everett proper
  • More green space
The current proposal does (as far as I can tell) essentially none of these. Residents have no real reason besides the abstract promise of tax revenue to back the project, and plenty of reasons not to.
 
How many Everett residents are opposed to the stadium? A majority? I question the premise that every development in a city requires approval by a majority of its residents. If that's to be a standard practice, then not a whole lot of development is going to happen in most locales. And yes, there needs to be public input on traffic and how the waterfront portion of the project fits into long term plans for establishment of an esplanade along the river. But to hold up the stadium until a comprehensive area plan is completed seems a bridge too far.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top