Letters to the Editor: $100 million in campaign spending doesn’t show you care
The “100 percent is best for the people/100 percent is best for you” campaign we hear so much about is a misleading campaign at best. I’m not a campaign finance “expert” — I’m an investigative reporter — but I’d like to say the way the City of Boston spent its money to “win” the contract with the Boston Public School System proves this is indeed the case.
Why was a campaign like this possible? It was the city’s decision to spend $100 million without the public getting to vote on the issue. And it was the people of Boston who got screwed.
The money that was spent was on a proposal to build a $500 million complex on the existing site of the existing City Center Project. Now what’s “new” is the city’s desire to “refurbish/rebrand” the existing building, and make it look better. I guess the $500 million will come from tax revenue and a fee levied on businesses that generate more than $50,000 in payroll. The cost will be borne by the businesses that currently pay the fee.
There are a million reasons not to spend $100 million on a proposal to build a football stadium in South Boston without public input. But let’s look at the other side. What is the value of having the taxpayers of Boston put up $500 million for a project that is currently sitting empty? It’s a very expensive “win” for taxpayers.
That same $500 million could have been used to fund various programs that will make life better for the majority of residents in South Boston, who have been left behind by the city. Instead, the school that the city is now building a stadium for is a “poster child” for the city’s dysfunction as a community.
But the best part is that if you