Group of Navy Yard residents sue to block conversion of failed hotel into affordable housing, including units for people trying to get out of homelessness

A group of 11 Charlestown Navy Yard residents today sued the BPDA and two non-profit groups, saying the approval process for a plan to turn a closed hotel into an apartment building where nearly half the units are meant for people trying to get out of homelessness not only violated state bidding laws and their own constitutional rights but will lead to sick, hungry, jobless addicts wandering and maybe even dropping dead in the streets of the historically important neighborhood.

At issue are plans by the Archdiocese of Boston's Planning Office for Urban Affairs and St. Francis House to turn the former YMCA-run Constitution Inn at 150 3rd Ave. in the Navy Yard into 100 apartments, all affordable, with 48 set aside for "permanent supportive housing" aimed at households led by veterans or women coming out of homelessness, and with on-site staff to help them. The YMCA would be allowed to continue to operate its pool and a fitness center until it can find a new location.

The BPDA board approved the project, in which more than half the units, including all the "supportive housing" ones, would be rented to people making no more than 30% of the Boston area median income, on Dec. 14.

In their suit, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the residents, all condo owners, say the BPDA rammed the project down the neighborhood's throat, disregarding what they said was extensive opposition. They charge the authority failed to comply with state law to put the disposition of the building out to bid, and disregarded its own rules for large projects, such as creating an "impact advisory group" of local residents and business owners to review the proposal.

The BPDA also violated the Open Meeting Law, they allege, adding that during the one Zoom hearing the BPDA held, the authority refused to let some Charlestown residents give testimony even it allowed people it knew were not from Charlestown support the proposal.

On Dec. 14, the suit continues, the BPDA board quickly approved the project without giving opponents a chance to speak.

All this, the suit charges, means the residents' rights were violated, specifically, their "right to assemble, right to free speech, and right to engage in petitioning activity, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Articles 16 and 19 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights."

And the YMCA pool? That violates the building's 1978 deed, which specifically bans pools, they charge, adding the city let the Y stay even though it long ago stopped paying rent on the building.

But as aghast as the residents are at the way the project won approval, they are equally horrified at the idea of formerly homeless people living near them.

According to the suit, Charlestown already has an overburdened medical system and the neighborhood "does not have the requisite resources or services to support the homeless population, the majority of which have complex health problems - both mental and physical - and are often dealing with substance abuse."

And let's not forget that Charlestown already has problems with ambulance staffing and does not have a full-time police station, all of which becomes critical because, the suit states - without specific citations - that "permanent supportive housing" for the homeless "does not decrease the number of overdoses or deaths."

The suit says no medical facilities near the Navy Yard are even accepting new patients, and the closest one that does is in Assembly Square, 1 1/2 miles away.

But because the building will have no parking spaces, residents of the new building, with their complex, sickly ways, will have no way to get there. That applies equally to the lack of supermarkets and pharmacies - and jobs - in the area, they charge.

At the same time, the residents also charge the building will lead to more traffic and parking problems.

The residents are seeking a trial at which to make their case why the project should be rejected and they and their attorneys should be compensated for bringing the suit.

Complete complaint (26M PDF).
BPDA documents on the plan.