JOSEPH P. MARCHESE
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Heard: May 9, 2019.
action commenced in the Superior Court Department on October
23, 2013. A motion to amend the complaint was heard by Linda
E. Giles, J.; the case was heard by Rosemary Connolly, J., on
motions for judgment on the pleadings, and entry of separate
and final judgment was ordered by her. The Supreme Judicial
Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the
Perrotta for the plaintiff.
A. Chicoine (Shannon F. Slaughter also present) for the
Thaddeus A. Heuer, for Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited
Partnership & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Michael G. Bongiorno, Arjun K. Jaikumar, Julia A. Harvey,
& Matthew W. Costello, for NAIOP Massachusetts, amicus
curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Budd, & Kafker, JJ.
2000, before the Boston Red Sox's recent run of World
Series championships, the viability of Fenway Park and the
surrounding area as the long-term home of the team was a
source of great concern to city planners, State legislators,
the park's neighbors, and, of course, die-hard Red Sox
fans. In August 2000, the Legislature declared the area
surrounding Fenway Park to be a blighted area and authorized
the construction of a new ballpark. Following fierce
neighborhood opposition and a change in the Red Sox's
ownership, however, plans were made to try to improve the
existing Fenway Park and its environs.
such fix concerned the park's concourse area, which, at
the time of the contemplated upgrades, was notoriously
limited, and indeed was considered the smallest of any
ballpark in Major League Baseball. To facilitate improvements
to this area of Fenway Park, in 2003, the Boston
Redevelopment Authority (BRA)exercised its eminent
domain powers as an urban renewal agency pursuant to the
demonstrations clause of the urban renewal statute, G. L. c.
121B, § 46 (f), and executed a temporary ten- year
taking of a limited easement over a portion of Yawkey
Way-- a public way adjacent to Fenway
Park. The BRA then entered into a licensing agreement with
the Red Sox, which granted the Red Sox exclusive use and
control over Yawkey Way on all days that the Red Sox played a
game at Fenway Park (home games) for a period of ten years.
2013, with this temporary taking set to lapse and the
licensing agreement about to expire, the BRA executed a
permanent taking of the Yawkey Way easement -- again pursuant
to § 46 (f) -- and subsequently sold the easement rights
directly to the Red Sox for as long as Major League Baseball
games are played at Fenway Park.
plaintiff, a local attorney and business owner who had sought
to acquire the Yawkey Way easement rights for himself,
commenced a civil action in the nature of certiorari in the
Superior Court, challenging the legality of the BRA's
actions with respect to the Yawkey Way easement. In his
complaint, he argued that the BRA exceeded the scope of its
authority when it executed a permanent taking of the Yawkey
Way easement pursuant to § 46 (f) because the area was
no longer blighted. He also argued that the BRA's actions
caused him harm because he should have been allowed to bid on
the Yawkey Way easement rights pursuant to the Uniform
Procurement Act, G. L. c. 30B (procurement act). The parties
filed cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, and the
motion judge granted judgment for the BRA. The plaintiff now
appeals, raising the same arguments that he made below, and
we transferred the case to this court on our own motion.
we conclude that the plaintiff lacks standing to challenge
the permanent taking of the Yawkey Way easement and the sale
of the easement rights pursuant to G. L. c. 121B, § 46
(f), we affirm., 
The BRA and its authority.
is an urban renewal agency. Mahajan v. Dep't of
Envtl. Protection, 464 Mass. 604, 606 (2013). In this
capacity, the BRA is vested with the authority under G. L. c.
121B to "effectuate the goals of urban renewal,"
id., which include the elimination of
"decadent, substandard or blighted" areas and the
promotion of the "sound growth of the community."
G. L. c. 121B, § 45. To that end, the BRA guides
"private sector development toward areas in need"
through various means, including "land assembly, title
confirmation, public financial assistance, and development
and design controls." Mahajan, supra.
See G. L. c. 121B, §§ 46-57A. The BRA is also
tasked with "supervis[ing] the adoption and
administration of urban renewal plans" -- detailed plans
for urban renewal projects that are created for the purpose
of redeveloping substandard, decadent, or blighted areas in
Boston. St. Botolph Citizens Comm.,
Inc. v. Boston Redev. Auth., 429 Mass. 1, 3
(1999) (St. Botolph). See G. L. c. 121B, § 1
(defining urban renewal projects and urban renewal plans).
the most "significant power granted to the BRA" to
carry out the goals of urban renewal, however, is the power
of eminent domain. Mahajan, 464 Mass. at 606.
Section 11 grants the BRA the broad authority to "take
by eminent domain . . . any property, real or personal, or
any interest therein, found by it to be necessary or
reasonably required to carry out the purposes of [G. L. c.
121B], or any of its sections." G. L. c. 121B, § 11
(d) . One such section under G. L. c. 121B is § 46 (f),
which expressly authorizes the BRA to "develop, test and
report methods and techniques and carry out demonstrations
for the prevention and elimination of slums and urban
the BRA's exercise of the eminent domain power pursuant
to this section that gave rise to the issues presented in
summarize the material facts, which are not
disputed. Plans to replace Fenway Park with a
new ballpark were under serious consideration as recently as
the early 2000s. Indeed, in 2000, the Legislature enacted St.
2000, c. 208, entitled "An Act relative to the
construction and financing of infrastructure and other
improvements in the city of Boston and around Fenway
Park," which included explicit findings that, as it
existed at the time, Fenway Park was "inadequate for the
purposes for which it was designed and a new ballpark is
required to attract and retain those athletic events which
shall promote the economic health of the commonwealth and
encourage further private development." St. 2000, c.
208, § 1 (d). The Legislature declared the area
surrounding Fenway Park to be an "economic development
area," which is defined under St. 1971, c. 1097, §
1 (e), to be "any blighted open area or any decadent
area" as those terms are defined by G. L. c. 121B,