Potential Exelon Mystic Station Redevelopment | Everett

[shmessy]

"Renders" are not "details." They are non-binding artistic impressions of what a stadium might look like. Boston is hoping to get the details that are actually relevant for them.
Boston's main concern, which they have said over and over, is transportation for 25,000 people getting in and out of the stadium. Specifically, they care about traffic and pedestrian safety for maybe tens of thousands of people suddenly going through the Alford Bridge and Sullivan Square, which are especially bad areas for pedestrians already. Boston wants to know what the plan is. That plan would affect Boston's in-progress road redesign in the area; the number busses needed; what the bus capacity at Sullivan Station needs to be; what kind of crowd control BPD will be doing; whether or not some streets needs to be closed to car traffic on game days; and on and on. Boston also cares who will pay for this. So please point me to any detailed transportation planning documents for this project.

Also, I'm still waiting for a source for your claim that Mayor Wu has "very publicly and loudly stated" that she does "not want this approved at this time."

Again, more than just a render.........

Here's a "detail" from the article:

".........The result: a community benefits agreement with the Krafts that included parkland, affordable-housing funds, and tight limits on parking. (CLF, in the end, did not sign on.)...."

Here's 7 pages of those details: (I'll even give a synopsis, for those not wanting to actually read it - like Emma Pettit, evidently)
-there's a 15 point DETAILED list of community benefits paid by Kraft for this stadium on pages 2-3).
-there's a 6 point DETAILED list of environmental/climate benefits paid by Kraft for this stadium on page 4
-there's a 10 point DETAILED list of miscellaneous provisions on pages 5-6

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/memorandum-of-agreement-nrs-signed-6553b8856284f.pdf

"Also, I'm still waiting for a source for your claim that Mayor Wu has "very publicly and loudly stated" that she does "not want this approved at this time."

...and yes, I've already AGREED WITH YOU in previous posts, that Mayor Wu technically did not make a statement opposing the stadium. It IS patently obvious she does not want it "approved at this time" - - and I have no beef with her on THAT part! However, her official spokesperson making CLEARLY FALSE CLAIMS about "no details about this proposal" is simply wrong and exposes her position to this.

 

[Stlin]

Again, more than just a render.........

Here's a "detail" from the article:

".........The result: a community benefits agreement with the Krafts that included parkland, affordable-housing funds, and tight limits on parking. (CLF, in the end, did not sign on.)...."

Here's 7 pages of those details: (I'll even give a synopsis, for those not wanting to actually read it - like Emma Pettit, evidently)
-there's a 15 point DETAILED list of community benefits paid by Kraft for this stadium on pages 2-3).
-there's a 6 point DETAILED list of environmental/climate benefits paid by Kraft for this stadium on page 4
-there's a 10 point DETAILED list of miscellaneous provisions on pages 5-6

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/memorandum-of-agreement-nrs-signed-6553b8856284f.pdf

"Also, I'm still waiting for a source for your claim that Mayor Wu has "very publicly and loudly stated" that she does "not want this approved at this time."

...and yes, I've already AGREED WITH YOU in previous posts, that Mayor Wu technically did not make a statement opposing the stadium. It IS patently obvious she does not want it "approved at this time" - - and I have no beef with her on THAT part! However, her official spokesperson making CLEARLY FALSE CLAIMS about "no details about this proposal" is simply wrong and exposes her position to this.

The point being? that's an agreement with Everett, NOT the City of Boston. It addresses Everett's concerns with the stadiums impact, Not Boston's.

Look at the signing and notices page - the only municipal folks who got a copy of it or signed it was Everett, and you'll see the City of Boston wasn't even copied on the document, let alone Mayor Wu - As far as Boston was concerned, they weren't in the room where it happened.

It does say that the stadium will commit to funding a study of, and implementing pedestrian improvements between Sullivan and the Stadium. However, it doesn't describe exactly what those will be - Those are the details that Boston want to know, not that Everett will get a modular hydroponics setup and free tickets. The Everett agreement doesn't contain what Wu wants to know, and it's perfectly reasonable to want to know. It's also understandable that Everett didn't address it because the *entirety* of the stadium's frontage on Alford and that path is within the City of Boston, and that Wu is annoyed that Everett didn't include Boston in its discussions.

 

[shmessy]

The point being? that's an agreement with Everett, NOT the City of Boston. It addresses Everett's concerns with the stadiums impact, Not Boston's.

Look at the signing and notices page - the only municipal folks who got a copy of it or signed it was Everett, and you'll see the City of Boston wasn't even copied on the document, let alone Mayor Wu - As far as Boston was concerned, they weren't in the room where it happened.

It does say that the stadium will commit to funding a study of, and implementing pedestrian improvements between Sullivan and the Stadium. However, it doesn't describe exactly what those will be - Those are the details that Boston want to know, not that Everett will get a modular hydroponics setup and free tickets. The Everett agreement doesn't contain what Wu wants to know, and it's perfectly reasonable to want to know. It's also understandable that Everett didn't address it because the *entirety* of the stadium's frontage on Alford and that path is within the City of Boston, and that Wu is annoyed that Everett didn't include Boston in its discussions.

It's DETAILS on the proposal. Nothing more nothing less.

Mayor Wu's spokesperson claimed " there have been no publicly or privately shared details about this proposal"- - not " the details that Boston wants to know".

Sure, I'd like Kraft and Everett to consult with mayor Wu - - it makes sense and is good for the entire region if there is full cooperation - - no argument there.

But the public statement " there have been no publicly or privately shared details about this proposal" is an out an out lie - it is what it is. If Wu's spokesperson said "We'd like to hear more and further detailed info", then that would be fine.

But she spoke an out and out lie.

 

[Stlin]

It's DETAILS on the proposal. Nothing more nothing less.

Mayor Wu's spokesperson claimed there were NO details at all - - not " the details that Boston wants to know".

First off, the full quote is “As with any major project, the impacts depend entirely on the details, and there have been no publicly or privately shared details about this proposal which includes Boston land in the parcel and would likely create more significant impact on Boston’s neighborhoods than Everett’s with primary access suggested to be through Sullivan Square.” (emphasis mine). The full context clearly indicates that the details they're concerned about are those that would impact Boston neighborhoods compared to Everett's - the subordinate which clause is clearly meant to change the subject of the sentence.

Please, outside of the following broad stroke "details", point to specifics about the stadium itself or improvements to the public realm (and not commitments to the city of Everett).

1) the stadium will be built on this site, which is in both Boston and Everett and will require demolishing the existing buildings.
2) It will contain approximately 25000 seats, and only 75 parking spaces.
3) they committed to building a waterfront park of approximately 4 acres, connecting to the path at Encore.
4) it'll use a maximum of renewable energy and have a grass field.
5) they'll raise the shoreline.

That's as much detail about it as is currently publically available. The fact that Everett's youth leagues and band would get to play on it occasionally isn't meaningful. Look at the past few pages of everyone arguing about the site layout - its because we don't know anything about it. If you were sitting on a planning board, would you approve it before you saw a site plan or a traffic study? Nothing says Wu's opposed - she just doesn't want to say yes without those, which Everett was willing to do. Again, as far as Everett is concerned, that part is Boston's job, and even Everett qualified their CBA with the statement that a full site plan review and public hearings would be needed.

 

[ritchiew]

It's DETAILS on the proposal. Nothing more nothing less.

Mayor Wu's spokesperson claimed " there have been no publicly or privately shared details about this proposal"- - not " the details that Boston wants to know".

Sure, I'd like Kraft and Everett to consult with mayor Wu - - it makes sense and is good for the entire region if there is full cooperation - - no argument there.

But the public statement " there have been no publicly or privately shared details about this proposal" is an out an out lie - it is what it is. If Wu's spokesperson said "We'd like to hear more and further detailed info", then that would be fine.

But she spoke an out and out lie.

Thanks for that. That's helpful for understanding your basis for calling Wu's spokesperson a liar.

I think most people (myself included) read her statement to mean they were still waiting on details that were relevant and useful for Boston. In that case, the agreement you point to isn't really about Boston, and the parts that are don't go into the relevant detail Boston is looking for. If those are the only public details you can point to, I would say she's not lying.

But you're right, we don't have to interpret her words that way. We can take her very literally. She might be trying to say there are literally no details about the project. In that case, we can look at those sections of the agreement you point to and see that the field will be natural grass (not Astroturf) and the Governing Law for the agreement will be Massachusetts Law (the Miscellaneous Provisions section you pointed to is all boilerplate legalese for how to interpret the agreement). Those are details. And on that basis you could call her a "LIAR."

And I guess people here can judge for themselves which is more reasonable.

 

[shmessy]

Thanks for that. That's helpful for understanding your basis for calling Wu's spokesperson a liar.

I think most people (myself included) read her statement to mean they were still waiting on details that were relevant and useful for Boston. In that case, the agreement you point to isn't really about Boston, and the parts that are don't go into the relevant detail Boston is looking for. If those are the only public details you can point to, I would say she's not lying.

But you're right, we don't have to interpret her words that way. We can take her very literally. She might be trying to say there are literally no details about the project. In that case, we can look at those sections of the agreement you point to and see that the field will be natural grass (not Astroturf) and the Governing Law for the agreement will be Massachusetts Law (the Miscellaneous Provisions section you pointed to is all boilerplate legalese for how to interpret the agreement). Those are details. And on that basis you could call her a "LIAR."

And I guess people here can judge for themselves which is more reasonable.

"

In that case, we can look at those sections of the agreement you point to and see that the field will be natural grass (not Astroturf) and the Governing Law for the agreement will be Massachusetts Law

I fully agree - -there's really nothing in the detailed memorandum that directly affects Boston. If "no details" means "not details that affect ME" then we do live in a Trump world after all. Plenty of details were given about the project - - just details about the project - not neighboring towns' ransoms.

But - - now YOU'RE being disingenuous!

There are far more FACTUAL details in there other than what you cherry picked:

-4 acres of open public park with Harborwalk maintained by Kraft
-constructing ADA compliant public waystations
-walking path under the Alford St bridge to connect to Encore
-$5 million for a 4-season community center with annual $1million donated
-$10 million to a housing stabilization fund there
-outright purchase of Freight Farms to be gifted to the city of Everet
-net-zero energy initiative for the complex
$750,000 to Charlestown for the athletic fields

....and that's a partial list.

Yes, but thanks for the clever disingenuousness of your characterization of it regarding the field playing surface..........

At this point, we are simply arguing semantics. You made your point, I made mine.

I will enjoy that stadium loudly rocking to "Proud Mary" before games in the hopefully not too distant future on the Mystic Riviera!

 

[BronsonShore]

She has not directly (technically) opposed the stadium. I was clear.

But her recent proposal for White Stadium (and partnership withNWSL team which would be a natural for the Everett Stadium) and her complaints due to her not being part of a process for a stadium that is in Everett certainly is aimed at delaying and being an obstacle for it.

She and the CLF have very publicly and loudly stated that they have ”concerns” and do not want this to be approved at this time.

The CLF has some very obvious conflicts of interest vis a vis Don Law. The Boston Globe is heavily pro-White Stadium vis a vis John Henry’s wife - part owner of the NWSL team. Mayor Wu obviously does not want another stadium that could potentially woo the NWSL team (which would shaft the White Stadium plan. It’s very clear that Kraft stadium would be a potentai suitor for the NWSL team and thus, a deal breaker for White Stadium.

So Wu is being passive aggressive re Kraft Stadium to protect her White Stadium plan. But, yes, she is being very careful not to definitvely use verbiage of “opposing” the Everett plan - lIke saying “People are asking questions…….”

I don’t know what you are arguing - - I agree with you that she has not definitively opposed the Everett stadium. She’s being far more careful/passive aggressive.

This is such a ridiculous stretch. This stadium doesn't "threaten" the White Stadium plan in any way, nor is Wu treating the White Stadium plan as if its any kind of crown jewel priority.

 

[shmessy]

This is such a ridiculous stretch. This stadium doesn't "threaten" the White Stadium plan in any way, nor is Wu treating the White Stadium plan as if its any kind of crown jewel priority.

I'll agree to disagree.

 

[stellarfun]

I am not going to retrieve a pdf file with the agreement for the specific wording. But IIRC, the agreement calls for an 'improved and safe pedestrian access between the stadium and the Sullivan Square station'. And that this access will be "built by others." As this pedestrian access is entirely within the city limits of Boston, who else besides the city of Boston would build this? The Commonwealth? Encore?

 

[Ruairi]

A screen shot from my twitter feed thismorning.
Very excited about this!

 

[cooper]

A screen shot from my twitter feed thismorning.
Very excited about this!
View attachment 53084

I know it's a placeholder, but the Everett rendering is horrendous. No blank precast walls facing the waterfront please!

 

[Charlie_mta]

I know it's a placeholder, but the Everett rendering is horrendous. No blank precast walls facing the waterfront please!

Yeah, it definitely looks like 1970s Los Angeles.

 

[stellarfun]

Stadium deal did not make it out of the legislature as the formal session came to a close Wednesday night.

State Senator Sal DiDomenico, an Everett lawmaker who’s pushed the proposal, said “multiple options” remain for trying to get it passed, including pursuing a standalone bill. “I’m not giving up, I’m committed,” he said. “It’s the right thing for my community.”

What Sal said might be part of the problem. A self-centered statement.

The stadium-related provisions were only in the Senate bill. And the House seems unwilling to tango.

Up all night: In hectic close to session, Mass. lawmakers strike housing deal, fail to move sweeping economic development bill - The Boston Globe

Massachusetts lawmakers unveiled a compromise housing bill — and the deaths of several others pieces of legislation — 20 hours into a final marathon session.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Shawmut]

Yeah, just saw it on X...

 

[kmp1284]

What a relief!

Imagine if we had lost those smoke stacks?

 

[Ruairi]

Not totally up on state law or how it all works,
Is that it?
Or do they sit around trying to come up with another plan for when government re opens, which is what, next year?
This all seems a bit crazy!

 

[stellarfun]

Not totally up on state law or how it all works,
Is that it?
Or do they sit around trying to come up with another plan for when government re opens, which is what, next year?
This all seems a bit crazy!

No, it is not it.

As the state senator from Everett has stated, the stadium could be brought up as a separate bill. The previous two attempts have tried to pass it by including it in an omnibus bill.

The problem is that in the stadium bill and in the bilateral agreement between the Krafts and the city of Everett, there is nothing in that bill or agreement for Boston, or Chelsea, or Somerville., or _________ << insert names other cities.

The state representative from Everett is the chair of a House Committee. From the Committee title, it seems that this committee oversees buildings and grounds on Beacon Hill As the chair of that particular committee, he can't offer much to the state representative from Somerville who might want the state to fund a new vocational school in Somerville (<illustrative example only). However, if the Everett rep were the chair of the Committee on Education, then the Everett rep could say to the Somerville rep, 'you support the stadium, and I will include a line item in the state budget for a new vocational school in Somerville'.

Put another way, Everett has 'no skin in the game' when it comes to the Massachusetts House and the stadium.

 

[Ruairi]

No, it is not it.

As the state senator from Everett has stated, the stadium could be brought up as a separate bill. The previous two attempts have tried to pass it by including it in an omnibus bill.

The problem is that in the stadium bill and in the bilateral agreement between the Krafts and the city of Everett, there is nothing in that bill or agreement for Boston, or Chelsea, or Somerville., or _________ << insert names other cities.

The state representative from Everett is the chair of a House Committee. From the Committee title, it seems that this committee oversees buildings and grounds on Beacon Hill As the chair of that particular committee, he can't offer much to the state representative from Somerville who might want the state to fund a new vocational school in Somerville (<illustrative example only). However, if the Everett rep were the chair of the Committee on Education, then the Everett rep could say to the Somerville rep, 'you support the stadium, and I will include a line item in the state budget for a new vocational school in Somerville'.

Put another way, Everett has 'no skin in the game' when it comes to the Massachusetts House and the stadium.

Cool.
Thanks for the explanation.
So Everett could bring it up on their own but dont have anything much to trade in order to get other cities to pass the bill?
So what if they bring it just on the grounds that it cleans up the site and brings added business to Somerville and Charlestown?
Other reps would really just shoot it down because they didnt get anything in return?

Also saw the Revs tweeted the stadium renderings about 2 hours ago with no comment.
Knowing them, it could have been a scheduled tweet that they never deleted.

 

[stellarfun]

The Krafts’ statement, issued via a spokesperson, began: “This legislative session, our Commonwealth missed a vital opportunity to clean up a brownfields site for an environmental justice community, robbing the city of Everett and its community of the ability to remove a dilapidated and decommissioned power plant and remediate a site contaminated over the decades and replace it with a public park, water front access, and a privately funded soccer stadium — which was just one piece of this very significant project.”

The Kraft Group thanked DiDomenico and Senate President Karen Spilka for advancing the project and their “commitment to doing the right thing for the Everett community” but said the company is “deeply disappointed that the House would not take up this legislation on its own, and that the Legislature was unable to act on major legislation at the end of this session.”

“This inaction on language that had no financial commitments from state or local government has halted the public process to determine the feasibility of this project before it could even begin and passing this legislation was strictly about allowing us to start the process of determining the viability of this project for Everett,” the Krafts added. “Massachusetts’ political landscape is one of the only places where creating opportunities in environmental justice communities and rehabilitation is dictated by the needs and bargaining of political leaders with outside influences and we had hoped for a different outcome for the citizens of Everett and environmental justice for that community.”

For the rest of the year, the Legislature only meets in informal sessions — lightly-attended meetings in which a single person can hold up a bill. There’s talk on Beacon Hill of passing a slimmed-down economic development bill during informal sessions later this year. It’s possible the stadium bill could move that way or via a standalone bill. Generally speaking, though, legislative leaders don’t like to pass controversial or complex measures in informal sessions.

Speaking to reporters Thursday morning, House Speaker Ron Mariano indicated there may be a way to pass stadium legislation or other elements of the economic development bill in informal sessions when roll call votes are not held.

As noted above, all it would take to forestall this approach in an informal session would be for a single legislator to object.

Kraft Group ‘deeply disappointed’ after state fails to move on Revolution stadium - The Boston Globe

A measure that could have paved the way for the Patriots owners to build a 25,000-seat soccer stadium in Everett died as the legislative session expired.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[ritchiew]

Healey has called on the legislature to come back and hash out the economic development bill that got dropped. This is the bill the senate stuck the stadium provisions in, so this is still kind of, sort of, maybe in play. Healey is using the bully pulpit to try to push this bill through, but it's much less obvious to me the stadium provisions will survive. (the bill is mainly about other economic development, especially supporting the life sciences sector)

At Healey’s urging, lawmakers ready to call special session to pass stalled economic development bill - The Boston Globe

In separate statements Friday, House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen E. Spilka said they are “prepared” to call a special formal session, a rarity in the Legislature, should they have a deal on the bill.

www.bostonglobe.com

I've known that Beacon Hill is dysfunctional like this, but is this year noticeably worse? This was like lose-faith-in-democracy bad. Major bills seem to get dropped every year, but now it was most major bills. I don't know how common it is for the governor to tell lawmakers they really need to go back and actually pass something.