Mayor vetoes City Council’s nonbinding ballot question resolution for soccer stadium

Cites councillors’ actions as misleading and politically motivated

By Neil Zolot

Mayor Carlo DeMaria effectively vetoed the City Council resolution to have a nonbinding ballot question on the siting of a soccer stadium off Lower Broadway in November, but the City Council declined to entertain an override question at their meeting on Monday, September 8.

In a letter to the Council dated August 26, the Mayor called the August 11 resolution — introduced by Ward 5 Councillor and Mayoral candidate Robert Van Campen — and other criticism of the project politically motivated, designed to serve as a “an expression of personal opinions on my leadership,” detrimental to further development in Everett, sending a message to investors that development in Everett is difficult and time consuming, and misleading the voters to believing the referendum would influence the decision making process. And he accused the Councillors of not reaching out to him to discuss the issue. DeMaria also wrote that the public has had and will have ample opportunities for input in public meetings. At public forums on March 31 and August 27, proponents stressed that there will be public participation in local and state site plan reviews and permitting processes.

On August 11, the Council approved a resolution asking for a nonbinding ballot question asking if the stadium “should be built at 173 Alford Street/1 Dexter Street (across Lower Broadway from the casino) by entering into a Community Impact Agreement with the (New England Patriots football team and New England Revolution soccer team owners) Kraft Group.”

Placement of a ballot question requires the Mayor’s approval and the lack of approval can’t be overridden by the Council, but DeMaria sent the letter anyway. Normally a two-thirds vote of the Council would be required to override a veto. “Technically it’s not a veto and couldn’t be overridden,” City Clerk Sergio Cornelio explained.

“It’s both sad and comical at the same time the Mayor would affix his name to this rant,” Van Campen reacted. “I hoped this Mayor would handle this in a more professional way, but I’m not going to ask for an override. I understand there aren’t enough votes to do that.”

Point by point he added that he never said the nonbinding resolution was the only way to gather or gauge public opinion, and accusations of Councillors’ being politically motivated are hypocritical given the Mayor is suing the Inspector General’s Office over allegations he received $180,000 in undue longevity pay. Van Campen also accused the Mayor of “cozying up to developers,” citing inadequate contributions by the Encore casino to the City as an example.

“It was politically motivated to say we haven’t given feedback,” Councillor-at-Large Stephanie Smith agreed. “We have and I’ve asked for specifics for a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA).”

“City Councillors shouldn’t have to attend community meetings to give feedback,” Ward 2 Councillor Stephanie Martins added. “The democratic way is for the Mayor to provide information.”

Ward 1 Councillor Wayne Matewsky thinks a ballot question would pass. “I think it would have won,” he said.” It appears most people are in favor of it.”

Ward 4 Councillor Holly Garcia feels, “If we’re not going to have it on the ballot,” we need to continue to have community meetings.”

Full Text of the Mayor’s August 26 letter to the City Council regarding their August 11th vote for a Non-binding Ballot referendum on the proposed Soccer Stadium:

“I disapprove of this measure because this action was not taken by the City Council with the best interests of the residents in mind. This action was purely politically motivated. The comments made during multiple public meetings by members of the City Council reflect that the intent behind this measure was to serve as an expression of personal opinions on my leadership. This is an inappropriate basis for any official action. It is disappointing this Council continues to advance its own personal and political agendas instead of focusing on ways to support this community.

I also disapprove of this measure because of the detrimental consequences it could have on future development interests in Everett. It is indisputable that as elected officials, we have an obligation to find ways to attract new growth and revenue sources. Supporting a non-binding referendum on prospective development sends the wrong message to investors that this City favors lengthy processes over finding ways to attract new growth that could provide tax relief to our residents.

As members of the City Council noted during the most recent debate on this matter, a non-binding referendum creates a false sense of influence for residents. Instead of using this time to engage in meaningful discussions about the benefit that a project such as this should bring to the community and the issues that should be mitigated as part of this potential project, the City Council has chosen instead to take a stand on an item that will not have a meaningful impact to this community.

It should also be noted that there have been multiple opportunities for residents to share their thoughts and opinions on the proposed project. There has been discussion about the proposed project at multiple City Council meetings and at community meetings specific to this project. Arguments that this referendum is the only way for the community to share their opinions and thoughts on this potential project have been proven false.

Residents should be aware that no member of the City Council has reached out to me with thoughts or suggestions about this project. Senator (Sal) DiDomenico and I have shared information about this project with the City Council. No member of the Council has reached out to me to engage constructively on this issue. I would recommend that if you wish to engage in meaningful discussion about a project that, as the sponsor of this order publicly agreed has the potential to be transformative to this community, there are more effective ways to advance the best interests of Everett residents.

I hereby request my objection to this matter be placed on the record of the City Council.”