The city council shot down a resolution Wednesday that would bar alcohol sales from White Stadium. Councilors Julia Mejia and Ed Flynn argued that White Stadium, as a Boston Public Schools facility, should be subject to all existing BPS policies – notably the prohibition of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol.
“The entire White Stadium Fund parcel remains a BPS facility and a public school premises for purposes of maintenance, repair, and operations,” Mejia said. “That designation does not change based on how the site is used or structured.”
She added that any introduction of alcohol into a traditionally family-friendly and student-centered space raises concerns about safety, consistency, and the type of environment being maintained.
“BPS children and students don’t need to see alcohol served on BPS property. It sends the wrong message,” added Flynn.
Councilor Benjamin Webber was the first to oppose, claiming that the resolution asked the council to make legal determinations that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) should take note of in the ongoing legal battle between the city and the Emerald Necklace Conservancy.
Webber questioned whether the resolution was really about protecting BPS kids or “another in a laundry list of disingenuous arguments to stop the White Stadium project.”
The councilor added that even opponents of the stadium project have struggled to maintain a consistent argument, noting that the Kraft Group, whose scion, Josh Kraft, structured his mayoral bid around opposing the project, had filed an amicus brief with the SJC supporting it.
“I think the public deserves consistent, transparent, honest advocacy around this issue. I don’t think this resolution is promoting that,” he said.
Councilor Henry Santana questioned Mejia’s record on similar issues, particularly how she had championed liquor licenses for restaurants on the ground floor of the Bolling Building, the headquarters of BPS.
Mejia rejected this inquiry, stating that the Bolling Building is a municipal building that BPS occupies, not a dedicated facility frequented by students.
Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata called the idea of an alcohol free White Stadium antiquated. “We can’t pretend that a blanket prohibition is the only pathway forward, especially in a shared-use facility like White Stadium,” she said. Councilor Sharon Durkan agreed, adding that barring alcohol would only detract from the experiences of their constituents if they were to attend, and that she opposes councilors trying to make policy through legislative resolutions, which are normally not subject to a public hearing.
“The e-mails that I get from my constituents are about how they are going to have access to opportunities and how we are going to make our city more vibrant,” Durkan said, “This conversation we’ve been having is devoid of reality.”
After a brief tangent from Councilor Erin Murphy detailing the joys of sober living, Mejia responded that the opportunities offered by the stadium will not be for the residents of the neighborhoods which surround White Stadium.
“Everything is being done under the guise of prosperity, but who is going to benefit?” she asked. “We’re not going to have a whole bunch of people here rocking Lululemon gear, getting a blowout. and pasteles on Egleston [Square].”
Mejia argued that the conversation about how White Stadium will be good for the city does not take into account the black and brown residents that good will not reach. “Prosperity for whom? For our students and families in surrounding communities? Or for large private actors and outside interests looking to profit from alcohol sales on public land,” she said in a statement.
The resolution was voted down 9-3, with Councilor Minniard Culpepper voting present.
“White Stadium, where you can have drinks and displace everyone in the neighborhood,” Mejia said in a video posted to Instagram.
