Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority

Decision Date21 December 1977
Citation371 N.E.2d 728,374 Mass. 37
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

David R. Pokross, Boston (Robert H. Quinn, Boston, with him), for plaintiff.

Robert W. Meserve, Boston, for President and Fellows of Harvard College and others (Edward J. Lonergan, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Boston, for Boston Redevelopment Authority, with him).

Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and QUIRICO, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.

ABRAMS, Justice.

Pursuant to St.1960, c. 652, § 13, the plaintiff Boston Edison Company (Edison) instituted a proceeding in the nature of certiorari in the Superior Court to review action taken by the defendant Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) under its statutory powers as set out at St.1960, c. 652, and G.L. c. 121A. The specific action which Edison attacks is the BRA's approval of a plan proposed by the remaining defendants (1) Citicorp Translease, Inc.; (2) L. Edward Lashman, Jr.; (3) the Medical Area Service Corporation (MASCO); and (4) the President and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) (collectively the Applicants) for the construction of an electric generating and steam power plant, an office building, and related facilities as an urban renewal project. A Superior Court judge heard arguments on two motions to dismiss, one filed by the BRA and the other by the Applicants. Each of the motions to dismiss alleged that Edison lacked standing to maintain its cause of action. Both motions also alleged in substance that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The judge denied the motions challenging Edison's standing. Thereafter, after a full hearing, the judge rendered a thorough and well-reasoned opinion which at its conclusion ordered that a judgment dismissing Edison's complaint (and thereby affirming the BRA's action) should be entered. Edison duly filed its claim of appeal. We allowed Edison's application for direct appellate review. The defendants did not take a cross-appeal from the judge's adverse ruling on the standing issue. We affirm the decision of the Superior Court judge.

The facts are as follows. MASCO is a charitable corporation established by twelve institutions engaged in medical, educational, and charitable functions. 1 MASCO's purpose is to assist its members in performing these functions more efficiently.

The project contemplates the operation and maintenance by MASCO, through a corporation formed pursuant to c. 652 and G.L. c. 121A, of a total energy plant which would provide electricity, steam, chilled water, and solid waste incineration for the MASCO member institutions. 2 The total energy plant would replace the existing Harvard steam plant on Blackfan Street, which presently supplies some of the steam requirements of some of the MASCO institutions but which is or will be increasingly inadequate to meet these requirements. In addition, the project would provide some nonelectrical services, free of charge, to the Mission Park Housing Project, a publicly assisted housing project previously approved by the BRA. 3

The power plant is to be located on 1.4 acres in the city of Boston in a block bounded by Brookline Avenue, Francis Street, Binney Street, and Peabody Street. This area is located within the Fenway Urban Renewal Area and is subject to the Fenway Urban Renewal Plan (Fenway Plan); approval of the Fenway Plan required a finding that the Fenway Urban Renewal Area was a decadent area. The area surrounding the site of the proposed power plant is characterized by institutional and commercial uses on three sides and by some residential use on the fourth side.

Edison sells electricity in the city of Boston, and among its customers are the twelve MASCO member institutions whose annual consumption yields to Edison approximately $3,000,000 in gross revenues. Construction of the total energy plant will result in Edison's loss of this business for a period of at least thirty-five years.

After informal contact between the Applicants and the BRA regarding the likelihood of the plan's qualifying as a project under St.1960, c. 652, and G.L. c. 121A, the BRA on April 30, 1975, submitted a draft environmental impact report (EIR) on the project. The Applicants submitted to the BRA a formal application for approval of the project on July 1, 1975. On July 7, 1975, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued a statement finding the draft EIR inadequate.

On August 26, 1975, the BRA conducted a public hearing on the project, as required by c. 121A. Edison participated fully in this hearing and filed with the BRA extensive materials setting forth its views on the proposed project.

On September 29, 1975, the BRA submitted its final EIR. On October 2, 1975, a motion to adopt a draft Report and Decision approving the project was tabled, but on October 9, 1975, by a four to one vote, the BRA adopted a Report and Decision approving the project. Included in the report were the findings required for approval of a project under St.1960, c. 652, and G.L. c. 121A. The BRA's vote was approved by the mayor of the city of Boston on December 8, 1975, and on December 17, 1975, copies of the BRA's vote and the mayor's approval were filed with the city clerk.

On November 5, 1975, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs found the final EIR inadequate. After the submission of supplementary information, the EIR was found acceptable by the Secretary on January 23, 1976. 4

Edison challenges the BRA's approval of the project on the grounds (1) that the total energy plant does not constitute a "project" as defined in G.L. c. 121A, § 1; (2) that, contrary to the BRA's findings, the site for the plant was not a "decadent and/or substandard area," and the project does not constitute a "public use and benefit" as required by c. 652, § 13, and c. 121A, §§ 1 and 2; (3) that deviations from the Boston zoning code granted by the BRA substantially derogate from the intent and purposes of the zoning code; (4) that the plan conflicts with the Master Plan for Boston and with the Fenway Plan; (5) that the vote of the BRA is invalid because the failure to disclose the amount of the additional tax payment on the project is a violation of G.L. c. 121A, § 6A, and (6) that the terms of four of the five BRA members who voted on the application had expired prior to the vote, thus rendering that action invalid.

Prior to examining the merits of these allegations, we confront the defendants' threshold claim that Edison is without standing to maintain the present suit. That argument was advanced in the Superior Court as a basis for the defendants' motions to dismiss. The motions were denied. Although the defendants did not take a cross-appeal from that ruling, they are not precluded from raising it here. A party who prevails in the Superior Court may present on appeal any ground which was previously asserted below in support of the judgment. 5 Boston Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. Boston, 367 Mass. 368, --- - ---, 326 N.E.2d 314 (1975). We therefore address this matter at the outset.

1. Standing.

Statute 1960, c. 652, § 13, provides that "any person . . . who is aggrieved" by a vote of the BRA may file a petition for a writ of certiorari against the authority to correct errors of law. Edison contends that its projected loss of approximately $3,000,000 per year over the next thirty-five years is an injury of sufficient magnitude to confer standing on it. The defendants argue, on the other hand, that business competition as the result of governmental action is not the type of injury which satisfies the standing requirement of the statute.

As the defendants maintain, the threat of competition is generally not a sufficient injury to confer standing. SDK Medical Computer Servs. Corp. v. Professional Operating Management Group, Inc., --- Mass. ---, --- - --- a, 354 N.E.2d 852 (1976). Nantucket Boat, Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S. S. Auth., 345 Mass. 551, 554, 188 N.E.2d 476 (1963). Springfield Hotel Ass'n v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 338 Mass. 699, 703, 157 N.E.2d 219 (1959). Colantuoni v. Selectmen of Belmont, 326 Mass. 778, 779-780, 96 N.E.2d 870 (1951). Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, 324 Mass. 427, 429, 86 N.E.2d 920 (1949). However, the cases in which this proposition has been established and applied are distinguishable from the instant case. In those cases the plaintiffs challenged decisions allowing the operation of establishments similar to their own which would compete with them for business and thus possibly deprive them of revenue. The injury to Edison, however, does not involve such a speculative loss of business through increased competition. Rather, the approval of the project by the BRA would cause a direct and ascertainable loss to Edison, and this loss would not be the result of competition for customers but would stem from the elimination of a group of consumers from the market available to Edison. Thus while we think the question of Edison's standing is a close one, we conclude that the general principle that harm from expected competition is insufficient to confer standing is inapplicable. Compare American Can Co. of Mass. v. Milk Control Bd., 313 Mass. 156, 46 N.E.2d 542 (1943), with Circle Lounge & Grille, Inc. v. Board of Appeal of Boston, supra.

We therefore turn to the law concerning the construction of "person aggrieved" to determine whether Edison has standing to maintain this action. "The scope and meaning of the words 'person . . . aggrieved' must be determined with reference to the context and the subject matter." Ayer v. Commissioners on Height of Bldgs. in Boston, 242 Mass. 30, 33, 136 N.E. 338, 339 (1922). In considering the grant of standing of c. 652, § 13, we have previously stated that the "words 'persons aggrieved' are to be given a comprehensive meaning." Dodge v. Prudential Ins. Co., 343...

To continue reading

Request your trial
156 cases
  • Newburyport Redevelopment Authority v. Com.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • November 8, 1979
    ...439, 442 n.3, 238 N.E.2d 48 (1968); Opinion of Justices, 373 Mass. ---, --- - --- j, 369 N.E.2d 447 (1977); Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redev. Authy., 374 Mass. ---, --- - --- k, 371 N.E.2d 728 (1977). Nonetheless, it is clear from the Boston Waterfront case that the authority now holds the......
  • Raso v. Lago, Civil Action No. 96-11945.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • January 6, 1997
    ...from M.G.L. c. 121A, which governs privately conducted "Urban Redevelopment Corporations". See Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 52-53, 371 N.E.2d 728 (1977); Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Montague Economic Development and Industrial Corp., 38 Mass.App.Ct. 615, ......
  • Fortin v. Ox-Bow Marina, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 13, 1990
    ...Pa. Mortgage Trust v. Dorchester Sav. Bank, 395 Mass. 614, 627-628 n. 18, 481 N.E.2d 1132 (1985). Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 374 Mass. 37, 43 n. 5, 371 N.E.2d 728 (1977). The issue of breach of implied warranty is thus not open on The judgment that the plaintiffs prope......
  • Leardi v. Brown
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 28, 1985
    ...plaintiffs have not cross-appealed this ruling, and, accordingly, we need not consider it. See Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 374 Mass. 37, 43 n. 5, 371 N.E.2d 728 (1977). e. Composition of Class Entitled to Damages. After the plaintiffs moved for clarification of the Hous......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • An Interview with Kent L. Richland
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ..., 490 U.S. at 618). 73. Triplett , 494 U.S. at 732 (Marshall, J., concurring). 74. Cf. Bos. Edison Co. v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth . , 371 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1977) (granting the appellee the right to present on appeal any ground that was previously asserted in support of a favorable judgment)......
  • Prosecution Insights Gleaned from a Review of Recent Patent Examiner Training
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ..., 490 U.S. at 618). 73. Triplett , 494 U.S. at 732 (Marshall, J., concurring). 74. Cf. Bos. Edison Co. v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth . , 371 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1977) (granting the appellee the right to present on appeal any ground that was previously asserted in support of a favorable judgment)......
  • When 30 Years of Practice Goes Against You: Patent Venue Ruling 'Ignores' Supreme Court Precedent
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ..., 490 U.S. at 618). 73. Triplett , 494 U.S. at 732 (Marshall, J., concurring). 74. Cf. Bos. Edison Co. v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth . , 371 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1977) (granting the appellee the right to present on appeal any ground that was previously asserted in support of a favorable judgment)......
  • Brave New Law: Appellate Standing at the Federal Circuit
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ..., 490 U.S. at 618). 73. Triplett , 494 U.S. at 732 (Marshall, J., concurring). 74. Cf. Bos. Edison Co. v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth . , 371 N.E.2d 728 (Mass. 1977) (granting the appellee the right to present on appeal any ground that was previously asserted in support of a favorable judgment)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT