Joseph P. MARCHESE
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
May 9, 2019
N.E.3d 1224] CIVIL 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.
Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the
case from the Appeals Court.
Perrotta for the plaintiff.
A. Chicoine (Shannon F. Slaughter also present), Boston, for
A. Heuer, Boston, for Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited
Partnership & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
G. Bongiorno, Arjun K. Jaikumar, Julia A. Harvey, & Matthew
W. Costello, Boston, for NAIOP Massachusetts, amicus curiae,
submitted a brief.
Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Budd, & Kafker, JJ.
2000, before the Boston Red Soxs 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 parks 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 Soxs ownership, however,
plans were made to try to improve the existing Fenway Park
and its environs.
such fix concerned the parks 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 [130 N.E.3d 1225] 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 BRAs 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 BRAs 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 ...