The Back Bay Architectural Commission voted unanimously April 11 to ban newspaper boxes in the neighborhood, making the area the second in the city (following Beacon Hill) to ban the boxes from sidewalks. Commission chair Anthony Gordon said the Back Bay edict will take effect in a month, when the commission meets again to approve a slight change in wording from the original anti-news-box petition initiated by the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB). The change opens the door for new, multi-paper kiosks that would be placed citywide as part of a “street furniture” program. But there is no immediate plan to build such structures, and each proposed kiosk would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

However, it’s not clear that the Back Bay Architectural Commission has the authority to enforce its vote. Earlier in the week, BostonPhoenix.com spoke with William Young, a senior preservation planner for the commission, who said: “This whole process is really uncharted territory. The petition process is not laid out in the legislation, so I cannot lay out for you or anyone what might follow a commission determination to enact such a ban.” Toni Pollak, the head of the city’s Environment Department, says that the commission does have jurisdiction to ban the boxes.

The prohibition — as noted previously by BostonPhoenix.com — would hurt paid-circulation newspapers such as the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the New York Times. But it would devastate free publications — including the Boston Phoenix, which has been free for over a year and circulates in Greater Boston almost entirely via news boxes. The Phoenix’s sister publication Stuff@Night, the Boston Tab, the Improper Bostonian, and a host of other free newspapers and magazines would suffer equally.

Roughly 50 people attended the meeting at City Hall, including Boston city councilor Mike Ross of Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and the Fenway, who spoke in favor of the ban. “It’s very clear to me that an overwhelming, great majority do not like these boxes, and the condition of these boxes,” he said. About a dozen neighborhood activists also spoke in support of the ban, while half a dozen representatives from local and national newspapers defended their right to keep news boxes on sidewalks.

Last year, the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay — upset about proliferation and poor maintenance of some news boxes—persuaded area newspapers to remove their boxes voluntarily from residential sections of the Back Bay, and to confine them to Newbury and Boylston Streets — heavily trafficked thoroughfares replete with T stops, shops, and restaurants. But group members were unimpressed with the results and sought a full-fledged ban. “The solution is to take the boxes completely out” of the neighborhood, said Peter Flynn, the chair of NABB. “The boxes that remained on Newbury and Boylston Streets did not improve.”

Newspaper officials saw it differently. “We feel very strongly that freedom to disseminate news is a cornerstone of our society,” said Steve Cahow, vice-president of circulation for the Globe. “There are many free publications whose very livelihood is these boxes, and I think you should think long and hard before banishing them.” John Hoarty, Cahow’s counterpart at the Herald, was also frustrated that his paper would be faulted for the misdeeds of others. “We keep our vending machines up to snuff,” he insisted. He also noted that the ban would inconvenience the people in the Boylston/Newbury Street area who purchase Heralds from news boxes each day: “There are thousands of residents who enjoy the convenience of picking up a paper.” (The Boston Phoenix’s circulation department reports that 10,000 copies of the Phoenix are picked up in the area each week.) Among such residents is Marshall Armstrong of the Back Bay, who attended the hearing and noted afterward that many people in the neighborhood, especially the elderly, like the news boxes. WBZ Radio (AM 1030) talk-show host David Brudnoy, who lives on Comm Ave, also voiced his opposition to the ban in a letter sent to local media outlets (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/this_just_in/documents/01282154.htm). “The effect of banning these boxes ... would be to deprive the newspapers of revenues and hence of the chance to survive,” he wrote. “It would restrict our ability to read a variety of news and opinion items, it would stifle an aspect of freedom of the press ... and it would serve no purpose whatsoever in regard to beautification.”

But the commission — which comprises nine full members and five alternates who are nominated by various constituency groups (including the Back Bay Neighborhood Association, the Back Bay Association, the Boston Society of Architects, and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board) and ultimately appointed by the mayor — was unswayed. Donna Prince, an alternate member of the commission, summed up many members’ feelings. “If there were no alterative places where newspapers could be sold and distributed, I might have a different attitude toward it,” she said. “But there are so many establishments where they could be sold — and where they would even welcome the opportunity to bring customers into their business.” Unfortunately, however, not many businesses would be willing to stock 20 different newspapers, so certain voices would effectively be censored. (See “Spreading the news,” Editorial, June 16, 2000).

Aesthetics trumped freedom of the press for NABB and the commission members last night, but at least Ross recognized the conundrum. “The reason this is difficult,” he joked, “is because the purveyors of these boxes are media, and in my business, you need good media.” But that’ll be hard to come by if Back Bay residents can’t even pick up a paper.

Issue Date: April 12, 2001