With Boston's progressive and conservative camps signaling opposition to Mayor Michelle Wu's proposal aimed at scaling back early morning protests in residential areas, the City Council is now setting up a working session to review the measure’s legal implications and potentially amend it.
Hyde Park Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, who chairs the Council’s committee on government operations, said he would ask for the city’s legal and police departments to attend the ordinance tweaking session.
Wu's proposed ordinance would expand the hours that protests are prohibited in cases where demonstrators target a specific residence, which would be enforced with fines. Right now, protests are restricted between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. The proposal would shrink the current 16-hour window for such protests down to 12 hours, from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
The proposal comes as the mayor's home in Roslindale has been repeatedly targeted by anti-vaccine mandate protests over the last several months, causing discomfort and inconvenience for her neighbors and family.
At a Monday hearing — the first public discussion of the ordinance — several City Councilors said they're concerned about limiting free speech and how the rule, though seemingly tailored, would be applied to other protesters not consistently targeting the mayor's house. Others offered support and cast the ordinance as a less worrying or significant change.
Five of the 13 City Councilors — Arroyo, Kenzie Bok, Lydia Edwards, Ed Flynn and Ruthzee Louijeune — expressed outright support, or indicated finding the measure reasonable and lawful.
The ordinance needs seven votes to pass.
Allston-Brighton Councilor Liz Breadon was circumspect in her comments, while Roxbury Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson described herself as "on the fence" about the proposal at its hearing Monday.
At-Large Councilor Michael Flaherty indicated support for adding a so-called "sunset provision" to the measure so that it would automatically terminate after a period of time.
Reached by phone after the hearing, Dorchester Councilor Frank Baker said he's inclined to oppose it.
"I don’t think people should necessarily go in front of people's houses like that, but if that's what they want to do, this is America," he said.
Mattapan and Dorchester Councilor Brian Worrell, who was not at the virtual hearing, did not respond to requests for comment.
Boston mayors have previously faced protests at their homes. Early-morning protesters went to former Mayor Marty Walsh’s Dorchester home over his support for Boston’s bid to host the 2024 Olympics.
But Council President Flynn, who recalled mayors facing residential protests stretching back to when his father helmed the city between 1984 and 1993, said the “aggressive” and “vicious” nature of protesters at Wu’s house is unprecedented.
“The demonstrations under the white mayors was professional, it was respectful and the demonstrations out in front of Mayor Wu’s home was personal, it was vindictive, it was mean spirited,” he said. “I think a lot of this has to do with Mayor Wu being a woman, and Mayor Wu being a woman of color.”
Three Councilors — Julia Mejia, Erin Murphy and Kendra Lara — expressed outright opposition, with two citing the potential for the ordinance to be disproportionately used against protesters of color in the future.
"I think as elected officials there's often an impulse to want these kinds of ordinances, but when you really look at the fine print of an ordinance like this, you find that it really doesn't line up with a number of values we consider to be so important," At-Large Councilor Mejia said during Monday's virtual hearing.
"First, I'm concerned about the unequal enforcement of this ordinance on organizers of color. Second, I'm concerned that using the police to enforce an ordinance like this, we have seen how the police in the past have cracked down disproportionately on organizers of color, LGBTQ organizers as well. Finally, I'm concerned about creating legislation just for the sake of creating legislation," Mejia continued, pointing to Boston's existing noise and permitting ordinances.
"As a neighbor and as a single mom who lives with her whole family, I get the impulse to want this ordinance, but we can't be impulsive with our values as elected officials," she said.
Mejia said she would struggle to support the measure without "major changes."
At-Large Councilor Murphy said she would not support the ordinance.
"I don't feel comfortable taking away people's rights or telling them when their rights can be exercised. At the same time, I do believe that any threatening or harassing behavior towards our mayor or anyone ... should never be tolerated," she said, pointing to the existing rules that could be used to rein in protester noise.
Jamaica Plain Councilor Lara expressed similar concerns.
"My stance on this issue does not come from a lack of empathy for what's been happening outside of Mayor Wu's house," said Lara, pointing to neighbors that have been so disturbed they've apparently documented protesters violating the city's existing noise ordinance and blocking streets.
"The bottom line is that the ordinance is repetitive. It infringes on people's right to assemble peacefully," Lara continued. "And while we're trying to solve a temporary issue, the unintended consequences will no doubt disproportionately impact marginalized communities who use civil disobedience and direct action as tactics to help secure civil rights."
But Hyde Park Councilor Arroyo expressed support for the measure, saying it would create civility in public engagement.
"We all run for office, we all put our names on ballots, we are all, I think, frankly, very comfortable engaging with constituents and see that as part of our job," he said. "I don't see that as the job of my neighbors, I don't see that as the job of family members who did not do that, I don't see that as the job of other folks who don't hold these spaces."
State Sen. Edwards, who will hold the East Boston City Council seat until the end of April, voiced support for the measure calling it a "reasonable" adjustment of existing rules.
"I do think it's one thing between held accountable and then using the ability to just simply harass somebody," Edwards said.
"This is about adjusting already existing law two hours," she said, pointing to the specific morning and nighttime changes that would take effect.
The Wu administration, represented Monday by Brianna Millor, the city’s chief of community engagement, said the measure was intended balance protests rights with quality of life standards.
But, in the hour and a half of public comments, most of the testimony came in opposition to Wu's proposal.
Multiple people pointed to the closure of City Hall and accused Wu of failing to make time to hear out those with different viewpoints. Others accused Wu of being "entitled and privileged," for attempting to curb protests before her home.
Beth Hoffman called Wu's measure a blatant attempt by Wu to compromise free speech that "masquerades" as concern for her neighbors.
"It is an abuse of power to change aspects of an ordinance simply out of convenience for disagreeing with what protesters are objecting to, or even the strategic time of day they're choosing to protest. This would harm free speech and democracy."
Dorchester podcaster Evan George said he found himself in an uncomfortable alliance with the anti-vaccine mandate protesters against the proposal.
"What ultimately, this is about ... is that this is a particular politician who has a problem with a particular protest. To allow the precedent of a politician to restrict what protests do they accept and which ones do they not will ultimately just lead us to a place where protests will not be allowed," said George.
Several public commenters threatened to sue the City of Boston if the ordinance passes.
