E-Mail This Article to a Friend The Gaiety outrage Despite community protest, a historic theater appears doomed. Plus, boosting the minimum wage, and why the anti-wind forces are full of hot air.

Despite the best efforts of neighborhood and arts-community activists, the historic Gaiety Theatre may be demolished as early as this Friday. Destroying this vital piece of Boston’s cultural heritage would be an outrage, but time has just about run out. This Thursday — after the Phoenix’s deadline — Massachusetts Land Court justice Keith Long was to decide whether to grant an injunction that could protect the Gaiety until legal questions about how the property is to be developed are worked out. Thus far, Long has given little indication that he would be inclined to approve such a request (see "Is Friday Demolition Day?", News & Features).

At stake is a 96-year-old theater that is one of the most historically significant arts landmarks in the city. Although the Gaiety has been shuttered for some time, the building — designed by the distinguished architect Clarence Blackall — was a pioneering venue for vaudeville, and was the only New England theater where African-American vaudevillians could perform. If restored, its outstanding acoustics would make it a concert setting rivaling the overbooked Symphony and Jordan Halls, and it could also function as an Asian performing-arts center, serving nearby Chinatown (see "Curtain Call," News and Features, October 15).

Sadly, Mayor Tom Menino has demonstrated scant regard for this history by signing on to a plan by businessman Alan Lewis to replace the Gaiety with a $120 million, 346-unit glass-and-steel residential tower whose 290-foot height would be nearly double the area’s 155-foot limit. The project, known as Kensington Place, would violate the city’s own zoning codes. In pushing for it, the mayor has ignored activists’ proposal to fix up the Gaiety and to build a more modest housing development.

Menino clearly views the Gaiety’s destruction as progress. It’s not. Perhaps Kensington Place and similar undistinguished buildings that the mayor supports will one day be known as "Tommy Towers." At a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast earlier this week, the mayor said, "If we listened to some folks in our city, we’d still have horses and carriages on the street." Menino was not talking specifically about the Gaiety, but his underlying message — that his critics are enemies of progress — is simplistic, insulting, and just plain wrong. Restoring the Gaiety to its former glory is precisely the kind of progress the city needs. Kensington Place will benefit no one other than the developers and the well-heeled folks who can afford to live there.

No one who works full-time should be consigned to a life of poverty. The minimum wage is supposed to guarantee that anyone with a job can pay for life’s necessities. Unfortunately, the value of the minimum wage has been sliding for decades. According to the Washington, DC–based think-tank Economic Policy Institute, the disgraceful $5.15 national minimum hourly wage is at its lowest level in real-dollar terms since the 1980s, and well below its 1960s peak. In Massachusetts, the situation is slightly better, but the $6.75 state minimum wage has slid in value by about 50 cents since taking effect in 2001, and overall it is largely offset by the state’s high cost of living.

It’s time to raise the minimum wage in Massachusetts — and to index it for inflation, so its buying power doesn’t begin to erode the moment a price increase takes effect. Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) and Representative Jim Marzilli (D-Arlington) are sponsoring a bill that would raise the minimum wage to $7 in 2006 and to $8.25 in 2007. After that, it would be adjusted annually to reflect the rate of inflation, putting an end to the days when the working poor would fall further and further behind (see "Bucking for a Raise," News and Features, December 10).

Governor Mitt Romney, too, supports indexing for inflation. But in what looks like an ominous sign, he has declined to endorse the $1.50 increase being pushed by Pacheco and Marzilli. In response to an inquiry by the Phoenix, Romney’s communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom, said by e-mail, "The governor does support indexing the minimum wage and will bring forward his proposal at the appropriate time. We are not familiar with the details of Senator Pacheco’s legislation or the other minimum-wage bills that have been filed for consideration in the 2005 session, but are willing to take a look at them."

The problem with this is that if indexing is not accompanied by a healthy initial boost in the minimum wage, it will merely lock in poverty for years to come. Once indexing becomes a reality, it will be extremely difficult politically to enact significant increases in the minimum wage. We now have the best opportunity to put some real money into the pockets of those at the bottom of the economic scale, while at the same time protecting them from the ravages of inflation.

At a time when the Republicans in Washington seem intent on returning to the 19th century, it is vital that Massachusetts assert its values as a commonwealth, where we look out for the needs of all our citizens. By endorsing the concept of indexing, Romney is part of the way there. But the governor needs to stand up to his supporters in the business community — many of whom will oppose any rise in the minimum wage, regardless of how modest — and come out in favor of a meaningful increase on top of indexing. He could start by announcing that he would sign the Pacheco-Marzilli bill.

From global warming to the latest tragic news out of Iraq, our dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic, is becoming more untenable by the day. Yet wealthy homeowners continue to fight a proposal to build windmills on Nantucket Sound that would — according to its proponents — meet three-fourths of the electricity needs of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket.

It doesn’t help that some of the state’s top elected officials are pandering to these well-heeled constituents by arguing, against all logic, that the 130 turbines proposed by Cape Wind Associates would somehow damage the tourist industry. As an example of how far the not-in-my-back-yard contagion has spread, Governor Romney and Attorney General Tom Reilly — possible rivals in the 2006 governor’s race — are both vocal opponents of the project.

According to a recent report by the Army Corps of Engineers, the windmills would have little or no negative effect on the environment, and the turbines would barely be visible from shore. The report concludes that the project might actually benefit tourism. Indeed, Cape Wind cites studies showing that wind farms have been significant tourist attractions in such places as California, Australia, Britain, and Denmark. Why should it be any different here?

Romney supports a windmill proposal in the Berkshires, where opponents are less well-connected politically. The fact is that we need both projects — as well as any other environmentally friendly means of producing energy. At a time when our dependence on oil threatens our existence, it is perverse to reject a safe, privately funded, proven alternative such as wind power.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com