New England Revolution

Seeking to remove the “Designated Port Area” status from a parcel of land on the Everett waterfront, the legislation would be an early step in the team’s latest bid to build a stadium. It’s headed for a vote on Thursday.

The Revolution’s bid to build a soccer-specific stadium in Everett is headed for an important vote in the Massachusetts State Senate on Thursday.

Tucked into a much larger economic development bill (S. 2856) is the same language from an earlier standalone proposal (S. 2692) that would reclassify a 43-acre parcel of land located at 173 Alford St. (a decommissioned power plant currently owned by Wynn Resorts) to no longer be categorized as part of the Mystic River “designated port area” (DPA).

In doing this, the legislation would open up the land to be developed by the Revolution for the possible building of a stadium. Under its current DPA status, it can only be utilized for industrial purposes.

This would only be a preliminary step. The current legislation does not authorize the construction of the stadium, but enables it as a possibility (whereas its current DPA designation prevents that).

“Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, a certain parcel of land located at 173 Alford street situated partly in the city of Everett and partly in the city of Boston shall be removed from and not be considered to be within the boundaries or a part of the Mystic River designated port area pursuant to 310 C.M.R. 25 and 310 C.M.R. 9 or any other applicable law, rule or regulation to convert the parcel into a professional soccer stadium and a waterfront park,” notes the current language of the bill in Section 166.

If the DPA is removed, the Revolution would have at least five years to try to build a stadium. If the club is unable to complete the process, the land would eventually revert back to its original status as part of the DPA.

State Senator Sal DiDomenico proposed the original bill in late 2023. It received a public hearing in April, and was reported out favorably by the committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies in May.

The proposed legislation had stalled. That was until Monday when the Senate unveiled it’s larger economic development bill, tucking the stadium-related language toward the end of its 174 sections.

The House did not include the stadium language in its earlier version of the bill (H.4804) from late June. This means that if the Senate measure passes with the stadium language included, it would have to be reconciled in conference committee.

Only then would it potentially head to Gov. Maura Healey’s desk.

Similar stadium-related proposals regarding the Everett DPA site have been floated before. Attempts in 2022 and 2023 gained approval of the House and Senate, but in separate years. Both times, the two chambers failed to agree to include the stadium language in the final version of each bill.

Currently based at Gillette Stadium, the Revolution have sought to build a Boston-area stadium for decades. The latest pitch in Everett is arguably the most complicated — given the preexisting DPA status of the proposed site — but could ironically provide the most sellable justification as a result.

The team, owned by Robert Kraft, has proposed to fund the $100-million process of cleaning up the the site (which would need to be decontaminated after the power plant infrastructure was removed). Given that a Wynn Resorts representative noted at the hearing in April that no other group was currently proposing to clean up the area, allowing the Revolution to do the job has received support from Everett Mayor Carlo DiMaria.

“There’s no other industry that’s going to come here and spend that money to clean that up,” DiMaria said at the hearing.

If the DPA is removed, it would effectively only get the local soccer team to “the starting line” in the words of Revolution president Brian Billelo. He spoke at the hearing in April, and promised transparency should the construction of a stadium become viable at the Everett site.

“Let me be clear: We are not looking to avoid the public process.”