The wheels of history sometimes move slowly: The Boston Landmarks Commission is currently considering whether to designate the interior of the former Eben Jordan, Jr./Unification Church mansion at 46 Beacon St. as a landmark of local, state and even national importance based on a petition submitted in 1977.

In a report compiled with the help of Historic New England and posted earlier this month, commission staff say the interior is worth of landmark status because it contains a unique auditorium designed by Wallace Sabine, a Harvard professor who became the father of "acoustic architecture," such as at Symphony Hall, the interior of which he helped design. But also, the rooms of the mansion became home of the Women's Republican Club of Massachusetts, a pioneering, "explicitly interracial women's organization" founded after passage of the 19th Amendment.

The initial petition to designate the interior was submitted after the Unification Church bought the building at foreclosure in 1976 for $475,000. The church sold it to a pair of local developers last fall for $20.5 million. According to the commission, it never acted on the 1977 petition because the church never let commissioners or staff members in for an inspection of the building, which Eben Jordan Jr. created by combining the building his father - the man who co-founded both Jordan Marsh and the Globe - owned and the neighboring one.

At a politely contentious hearing last night, lawyers and a historical consultant for new building owners Geoff Caraboolad and Jim Keliher told the commission it had no business trying to tell their clients what to do with their indoor space, that the petition the commission was considering was a "stale legal nullity" because it was first submitted 47 years ago by people who are now mostly dead, that in any case the rooms are "infested" with mold and asbestos, that the Moonies ripped away much of the historically important fabric that once covered the room and that whatever it is Caraboolad and Keliher are planning for the building - they did not say - the spaces wouldn't be open to the public anyway.

"It's strange and indeed troubling that more than 40 years lapsed without any interest to pursue the designation," William Young, a historical consultant hired by the developers, said. He said that under Unification Church ownership, the rooms suffered "massive water infiltration" and resulting mold bursts.

One of the first people to speak after the lawyers, however, was Michael Bojanowski, who signed the original 1977 petition and who, at least on the Zoom session through which the hearing was held, sounded very much alive.

Bojanowski said he continues to believe the space should be designated a landmark. He said the Jordan family was always a strong supporter of music in Boston and that there is "a dearth of beautiful performance space in Boston," a lack that could be exacerbated not only by the possible remodeling of the Jordan rooms but by the elimination of an auditorium at the Franklin Institute building in the South End, once the institute moves to its new home in Roxbury.

One key issue for the commission is the state of the rooms it would seek to save. While the developers say the church let the spaces fall apart, Mother Catherine, the last pastor at the church facility before it was sold, denied that. She said the photos submitted by commission staff accurately reflect what they looked like under church ownership and that while the church did have to rip away one wall due to water getting in, the church left the space in good shape for the new owners.

"I never saw black mold," she said, acknowledging there was asbestos in the basement, but church members rarely went down there.

Proponents said the commission has designated interior spaces as landmarks, including at 314 Commonwealth and 395 Commonwealth - as well as at the Jacob Wirth restaurant.

But Young said those designations were done with the cooperation of the building owners, and only for parts of the building open to the public, neither of which is the case on Beacon Street.

Commission architect Chelsea Blanchard responded that "public access is not a requirement" for designation. Alison Frazeee, executive director of the Boston Preservation Alliance said landmark designation does not mean the developers can't do anything with the space, but that designation would help preserve the historic and architectural features should future owners decide to open the space to the public.

"If we lose the space now we lose all future possibilities," she said.

Landmark designation would mean any changes to the space would have to be approved by the Landmarks Commission. Because of its location on Beacon Hill, the building's exterior is already covered by similar oversight by the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission.

Commissioners and developers differed on why nobody from the city has taken a look at the spaces since it was sold last fall.

Lawrence DiCara, part of the developers' legal team, said he offered then Landmarks Executive Director Rosanne Foley a chance in October to have commissioners tour the building so they could see the conditions for themselves, but that Foley refused to let commissioners go over concerns about the Open Meeting Law - even after, DiCara said, he found commissioners could visit the building without worrying about violating the law.

Foley did not have a chance to answer at last night's meeting because Mayor Wu fired her earlier this month over criticisms of the city's approach to historic preservation.

Commissioners agreed to work with the developers to set up an inspection.

Commission Chairman Bradford Walker set a Friday deadline for additional comments to be e-mailed to the commission.

WBUR self reports the NPR news station says two dozen employees have applied for buyouts and that the station plans to lay off seven and eliminate nine currently vacant positions, all by June, in an effort to cut $4 million from its budget due to a decline in sponsorships. Competing GBH is also looking at possible cuts.

The Boston Office of Nightlife Economy today announced $10,000 grants for groups and individuals to put on "nighttime activation" events to give non-sleepyhead Bostonians something fun and free to do after the sun goes down, between July and December.

The city has $250,000 in ARPA money ready to dole out to support events sponsored by Bostonians or Boston-based groups that fit into one of several categories: Events specifically curated for persons with diverse abilities (physical, cognitive, or emotional); events showcasing the many cultural interests and expressions of Bostonians; events promoting multi-generational social interaction; events that specifically aren't centered on booze; events on weekday nights downtown or in surrounding neighborhoods; and events aimed at people 20 or younger.

Events the city won't fund are those that promote a specific company, that have an admission fee or that are religiously oriented.

Application form.

The Boston Licensing Board could decide tomorrow whether to approve a food-serving license for Middle Eastern-based Sofra Bakery, 210 North Harvard St. in Allston - directly across from a Dunkin' and around the corner from a Starbucks and a Swissbaker.

If approved, this would be the second Sofra, joining one in Cambridge.

At a hearing today, co-owners Gary Griffin and Anna Sortun said the new outlet would serve both sweet and savory items, along with coffee and other beverages. They said they would also move their kitchen to the new location because it's larger than the one in Cambridge. The location would have 32 seats indoors and 12 seats on a seasonal patio.

The two applied for a closing time of 9 p.m., although they said they would initially close at 5 p.m. and only extend the closing time if business warranted it.

One resident urged the board to make sure the place keeps to 5 p.m., though.

"5 is OK, I guess, but to go later than that might be a problem for us," she said. She said Swissbaker does little business after 5, anyway. She added another potential issue is noise from a freezer Sofra has proposed to put outside in its parking lot, next to one neighbor's property.

The Dunkin' is currently open until 9:30 p.m., according to the chain's Web site.

The Allston Civic Association supports the bakery, according to a liaison from the city's Office of Neighborhood Services.

Initially, the bakery will not be offering home delivery through third-party drivers. Griffin agreed with a request from board Chairwoman Kathleen Joyce that if that changes, Sofra file a formal plan with the board on how it will deal with any parking issues related to third-party pick up.

CommonWealth Beacon introduces us to Ian Cain of Quincy, who today formally announced his bid to win the Republican nomination to take on incumbent Elizabeth Warren this November. He's running against (so far), cryptolawyer John Deaton.

Andrew Square residents, the local police district and elected officials all oppose efforts by the owner of Red Line Pizza, on Dorchester Avenue across from the Andrew Square T stop, to legally stay open for pick-up pizza until 2 a.m., saying it's become a "magnet" that attracts the homeless, drug users and people looking for a fight in a neighborhood that already has quite enough of that - as well as a generator of rat-summoning trash.

At a Boston Licensing Board hearing this morning, however, attorney John Connell, representing owner Mohamed Mourad, said the place's problems are all behind it and that Mourad is getting unfairly blamed for problems he has nothing to do with - for example, Red Line shares an alley with other businesses that might be causing trash problems on the block.

But C-6 Sgt. Det. Carl Blando said officers responded to Red Line on a report of two drunk customers fighting inside the place at 1:25 a.m. on March 26 - just a month ago and nearly 2 1/2 hours after its current legal closing time for walk-in business of 11 p.m.

Andrew Square Civic Association President Linda Zablocki, spoke of "cans of pasta sauce that weren't even rinsed out" and equally unrinsed five-pound pizza pans just sitting in the alley.

Red Line Pizza currently has permission to stay open until 2 a.m. for pickup by Uber Eats and other home-delivery services. Connell and Mourad appeared before the board to ask for permission to let people walk in until 2 a.m. as well to pick up orders - Connell said the restaurant's seats would be roped off to keep pick-up patrons from trarrying.

"It's a natural place to get a late-night meal and bring it home," Connell said of its location across from the T stop, pointing to second-shift workers getting home after midnight - and the fact that he used to live in the area himself. He noted the Sports Connection has a 2 a.m. closing and that the board recently approved a similar closing time for the planned Small Victories tavern.

"We're not providing alcohol, we're not providing entertainment, we're selling cheeseburger subs," he said, adding that the extra revenue would help support not just Mourad, who came here as an immigrant from Egypt, but his eight employees.

"We're very committed to turn this around and make it a better operation," he said, adding he has worked closely with Mourad over the past eight months to do better.

But residents, City Councilors Ed Flynn and John FitzGerald and state Sen. Nick Collins were not having it.

Maria Bermudez, who lives nearby, said even just pickup business will attract more homeless people to the area and "magnify the unsafe environment we're currently experiencing." Other residents said they have seen no improvements in pizza-related trash in the area.

The Andrew Square Civic Association voted to oppose the later hours.

Zablocki said Red Line forms part of "the Andrew Square Bermuda triangle" along with the 7-Eleven and the T stop. She said the neighborhood has no problems with the Dunkin' or Sports Connection because they take care of business and clean up after themselves.

Blando said maybe if Red Line actually closed at its current official 11 p.m. time, he might, after awhile, be willing to give them a chance with a later closing time. But he said that police keep getting called to Red Line for fights and other problems, and "it's always after 11 p.m."

Licensing Board members, who suspended Red Line's license for a day last year for letting people in after 11 p.m., asked why the pizza place's Web site continues to show a 2 a.m. closing time - months after they first asked for it to be changed.

Connell said Red Line has tried to get that changed, but that Slice, the vendor it uses, has run into some sort of snag and simply hasn't been able to change that. However, somebody can: Last week, the site listed hours of operation as late as 2:45 a.m., but this morning, the site shows a closing time of 2 a.m.

The board could vote tomorrow on the request for a later closing time.

Streetsblog Massachusetts reports on the cruiser crash Saturday afternoon on the sidewalk in front of the Granary Burying Ground on Tremont Street, taking out a traffic light and damaging a hydrant, but not hitting anybody. The officer was on his way down Tremont to the Burger King, where other officers managed to arrest a man while he was still trying to hold the place up at gunpoint.

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy and a group of Roxbury, Jamaica Plain and Dorchester residents said today they will continue their legal battle against plans by the city and a professional women's soccer group to remake White Stadium into a modern facility able to host pro soccer.

The conservancy and local residents, who include longtime Franklin Park advocates Jean McGuire and Louis Elisa, and who now call themselves the Franklin Park Defenders, say the plans, which would include a restaurant and beer garden, would deprive the public of their right to the stadium on 20 prime Saturdays a year. Giving over the stadium to the soccer team, even with the stadium available to the public on other days, is an unconstitutional taking of a public park facility for a private enterprise, they say.

In a statement, Elisa said:

BPS football teams would be displaced from their home stadium because the soccer league doesn’t want their cleats on their field. Community events and festivals will have to fit around the soccer team’s schedule, and the people who have spent the last thirty years cleaning up this park will be forced out on more than half of the warm-weather weekends.

The groups sued earlier this year and initially sought an emergency court order to block the city and Boston Unity Soccer Partners from doing any work on the stadium - where only one of two grandstands is currently usable due to fire damage.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge denied that request, however, saying the city and the soccer entity could continue their planning and work on the proposed $80-million project could continue even as the suit does. In her ruling, Judge Sarah Weyland Ellis said none of the money for the project would come from the George Robert White Fund, which initially paid for the land and stadium construction and which requires its money only be used for projects "for the use and enjoyment of the inhabitants of the City."

Weyland Ellis added that, if anything, the soccerized-White Stadium would mean increased public access to the stadium by completely renovating the aging, fire-ravaged facility and that even a public facility can allow some private uses.

The groups say that instead of bringing privatization into Franklin Park - they say they are concerned about the proposed new 11,000-seat stadium also being rented out for concerts - the city should concentrate on rebuilding White Stadium as a facility just for the use of BPS athletes and the public.

A federal appeals court yesterday dismissed a lawsuit by the sister of Juston Root, shot 31 times in 3 seconds by Boston and State Police officers along Rte. 9 in Brookline in 2020, ruling that the officers had more than enough reason to fear for their lives and the lives of nearby people, both because he had pulled what appeared to be a gun on officers outside Brigham and Women's Hospital and because when the officers approached they thought he was about to pull a gun on them.

The ruling was not unanimous. One of the three appellate judges who heard the case said testimony by the officers and by a woman who rushed to help a staggering Root after he stumbled out of his car but before the police arrived was inconsistent and that actions by officers during and after the shooting - some of the Boston cops had their body-worn cameras off or obscure and huddle together for an hour before talking to investigators - were sufficient reason to let Jennifer Root Bannon's wrongful-death suit go to trial.

All three judges did agree to dismiss Bannon's case against the Boston Police Department, concluding that the fact that one officer disregarded department policy and slammed his cruiser into Root's car in an attempt to stop him on Huntington Avenue was his fault, not the department's, because the department had properly trained officers on how to pursue a suspect - Root drove from the hospital down Rte. 9.

In the majority ruling, US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Sandra Lynch concluded a lower-court judge had been correct in dismissing the suit, that the officers "acted reasonably" and did not violate Root's Fourth Amendment rights, so the principal of qualified immunity holds.

Root's death started in an incident on Vining Street in the Longwood Medical Area on the morning of Feb. 7, 2020, when Root confronted and chased Brigham and Women's guards with what appeared to be a gun and then two Boston police officers, approaching him from opposite sides, shot at him. At least on of the 15 rounds they fired hit Root; another hit a hospital valet about a half block away.

Root then got into his car and drove, at first at the speed limit, up to and then down Huntington Avenue towards Brookline, until a BPD officer in pursuit tried to ram his car, at which point he got up to 90 m.p.h. or so down Rte. 9, as Boston officers, joined by a state trooper raced after him. He came to a stop just past Hammond Street on a mulched area between the highway and the Star Market parking lot, where officers and the trooper got out and, after yelling at him to drop his gun, fired 31 shots in three seconds, killing him.

Each of the officers reasonably believed that Root was armed with a gun. ... The officers also had every reason to believe Root posed a continuing and immediate threat to them and the public: Officer Godin had witnessed Root fire his gun at him at BWH. Just moments before the shooting, Root had "led [the officers] in a car chase" through an urban area at high speeds, ignoring the officers' "attempt[s] to pull him over," "act[ing] with complete disregard for [the officers'] safety or the safety of anybody else that might have been on the street," and causing a serious collision. ... And throughout his interactions with the officers, Root did not comply with lawful orders meant to defuse the situation and eliminate the danger he posed. These included commands to drop his weapon at BWH, to stop and show his hands following the PIT maneuver [the cop ramming his car], and to show his hands immediately before the shooting in Brookline.

They added:

We reject Bannon's argument that it was the officers, not Root, who created this situation by closing in on Root's position rather than seeking cover behind their cruisers, creating a perimeter, or delaying in order to assess the situation. A use-of-force expert retained by Bannon opined that the choice to follow Root into the mulched area did not comply with "standard police practices." As the case law makes clear, in situations such as this that opinion entirely misses the point of the legal test. "[T]he Supreme Court intends to surround the police who make these on-the-spot choices in dangerous situations with a fairly wide zone of protection in close cases," and "a jury does not automatically get to second-guess these life and death decisions, even though the plaintiff has an expert and a plausible claim that the situation could better have been handled differently." Roy, 42 F.3d at 695 ...

Video footage shows the incident unfolding in a public place between Route 9 (on which a steady stream of traffic was moving) and a shopping center parking lot. A reasonable officer would conclude that Root, known to be armed with a gun, would endanger the officers and nearby members of the public if not quickly apprehended. See Roy, 42 F.3d at 696; Dean v. City of Worcester, 924 F.2d 364, 368 (1st Cir. 1991) (officers encountering suspect in public area had good reason to "effect the intended arrest with . . . alacrity").

Bannon's appeal, in the end, comes down to an argument that the officers and an independent witness did not see what they consistently testified to and say they saw: that, just before each of the officers made the decision to fire, Root appeared to reach for a gun in his jacket. That movement, under the undisputed circumstances, would lead reasonable officers to conclude that Root posed an immediate threat to the safety of both the officers and the nearby public. See, e.g., Lamont, 637 F.3d at 183 (holding that officers reasonably employed deadly force where an apparently armed suspect made "a movement uniformly described by those on the scene as being similar to that of drawing a gun").

In her dissent, however, Judge Lara Montecalvo said the events leading up to and after Root's death are very much disputed, to the point it should be left to a "factfinder," that is, a jury, to decide Bannon's claims, starting with conflicting statements on just how police found Root once they arrived at the parking lot:

It is readily apparent that the officers' accounts contain many inconsistencies as to Root's movements directly before the shooting. While some officers stated that Root was seated or kneeling, others recalled Root standing on two feet, and one officer first testified that Root was standing but later said that Root was merely attempting to stand. There were also officers who testified that Root's hand was by his chest the entire time, while others said Root moved his hand up to his chest. Some of the officers observed Root reaching into his jacket, others testified that they fired because Root was removing his hand from his jacket, and yet another officer testified that shots were fired because Root was reaching into his jacket but later said shots were fired after Root began pulling his hand out of his jacket.

And was Root seeming to reach for a gun - even if it turned out to be a BB gun - when officers began shouting at him to get down? Montecalvo notes that a Brigham and Women's doctor, who happened to be driving down Rte. 9 on his way to work at the time, said he saw Root reaching into his jacket and then turn around as the officers approached. The problem: None of the officers said they saw Root turn. And then there was the testimony of a woman, who had EMS training, who rushed to Root and who said he was in no position to cause a threat to anyone: He was lying on his back, covered in blood, his breathing came only with gurgling sounds and his eyes were rolled back in his head.

None of the officers stated that Root was faced away from the officers at any point or that Root ever changed the direction he was facing. McCarthy's [the woman's] testimony also indicates that when the officers approached her and Root the officers were within Root's line of sight, further evidencing that Root was initially facing towards the officers. In and of itself, the inconsistencies in the testimony regarding Root's movements (particularly when paired with McCarthy's testimony) create genuine issues of material fact as to what Root's movements were just prior to the shooting. However, the inconsistencies also raise questions as to the credibility of the officers, as does other evidence in the record.

Even the state of the BB gun found by Root's side was an issue, she wrote: An expert witness testified that the BB gun was not covered with blood or damaged in the barrage of gunfire, which it likely would have been had Root had it in his jacket at the time.

Supposedly, there will be a march on Monday from Park Street to the MBTA headquarters in Park Square to demand the T put large googly eyes on the fronts of its trains.

Look: the MBTA has a responsibility to improve the lives of Bostonians. If the trains can’t be reliable, at least they can be fun and bring a smile to the faces of over a million people per day. Compared to the $24 BILLION dollars it will take to fix the T, simply adding Googly eyes to trains could represent a budget of merely a few hundred dollars. Think of all of the new T riders who will come from around the globe to revel in the glory of Boston’s trains.

Organizers of the noontime march also have a more sympathetic view of the T than most of us:

Humans are an empathetic species - we want to relate to the world around us, to feel a connection to our surroundings and our public transit system. When T trains are delayed, people can at least look into the eyes of the train when it finally arrives, and feel some love and understanding in their hearts. The T doesn’t want to be late. It feels bad being late.

There is some precedent.

Via Ariloo.

Another truck driver managed to wedge his truck inside the Sumner Tunnel this evening.

The Dorchester Reporter reports that after all 16 members of the Boston Landmarks Commission - which has oversight over demolition of any Boston building more than 50 years old - criticized Wu's handling of several major projects in the city, she fired its executive director, Rosanne Foley. Foley was appointed to the post by then Mayor Walsh in 2015.

Javare Sommerville-Adams, 17, up from Providence for the annual Caribbean Carnival, was standing at Blue Hill Avenue and Columbia Road enjoying the celebration on the morning of Aug. 28, 2021 when a man he didn't know standing near him plunged a knife into his neck.

A Suffolk Superior Court jury today convicted Omara Shears, 46, of first-degree murder, which means a sentence of life without parole, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.

According to prosecutors, as Sommerville-Adams crumpled to the sidewalk, Shears put on a ball cap and sauntered away toward Seaver Street: "Video then showed Shears interacting with members of his family while holding a knife in his hand."

Sommerville-Adams, who had only been standing near Shears for a few moments, was rushed to Boston Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead, the DA's office reports.

In a statement, DA Kevin Hayden, who attended the reading of the verdict, said:

What guilty verdicts can do is bring survivors of homicide victims the knowledge that justice has been served and an offender has been held accountable for their actions. But what verdicts can never do is erase the pain and loss and grief of losing a loved one. I’m grateful for the jury’s service and verdict in this tragic and inexplicable act of violence - which ended the life of a young man enjoying a city festival - and my office will remain at the service of Javare’s family as they continue to process their terrible loss.

Roving UHub photographer Ray Ausrotas spotted Boston's musical bear outside Faneuil Hall yesterday. Sam Adams, as usual, was unimpressed.

A concerned citizen filed a 311 report today to alert the city there was a turkey at Nearen Row and Tremont Street in Charlestown.

Only people with Harvard IDs will be allowed in, in anticipation of Gaza-related protests, the Crimson reports.

WBZ reports students at Emerson and MIT have set up encampments.

Buddhistdoor Global reports on the reception the items received in Seoul by monks of the Jogye Order of Korean Buddhism after their return.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that the company that sells space on billboards on MBTA property in Boston has to pay city property taxes on the structures.

Outfront Media argued it was exempt from city property taxes because the MBTA land on which the billboards sit is exempt from the taxes and that it was providing a service to the MBTA - in addition to paying the T rent, it had to set aside a percentage of the ad time for MBTA messages.

But the state's highest court concluded that, ultimately, the company was "using" - a key word in the state law on related to property-tax exemptions - MBTA property to make a profit beyond what it was earning from providing a service to the T. And that means the billboards - and the telecommunications equipment attached to some of them - become taxable, just like stores or other profit-making enterprises run in space owned by non-profit concerns.

The ruling specifically means Outfront will not get an abatement it sought on the $198,257.49 it paid Boston in property taxes for the 2020-2021 fiscal year.

The court contrasted what Outfront was doing with a janitorial company hired to keep T stations clean:

The janitor who cleans an MBTA station or the plumber who replaces a leaky pipe on MBTA property would not use MBTA property in connection with a business conducted for profit as those terms are properly understood under § 24 [the state law at issue]. Their degree of control over the property is too limited. To perform the services requested of them, their physical control over the property is confined to the time and space needed to perform the services requested. Their control over the revenues that may be generated by the property are also more limited. They are not empowered to serve their own clients and retain the profits from those third-party transactions. The revenues they receive from the MBTA are also defined by the service contract. Contrast this with the owners of a for-profit coffee shop or restaurant operating inside an MBTA station. They enjoy a much greater degree of physical control over the property, including the design and operation of their business. They also charge for their own third-party customers, and do not just receive revenues from the MBTA. Finally, they retain the revenues that may be generated from their right to use the property for their for-profit business. If they are exempt from taxation, they also have an advantage over a similar coffee shop or restaurant operating on private property and subject to taxation. A service provider is not similarly advantaged.

Applying these principles to the instant case, Outfront is not just providing services to the MBTA, it is using the MBTA's property to conduct a business for profit. Outfront's control over the property and the revenues that may be generated by the property reflect this distinction. Its exclusive physical control over the property is significantly greater than a service provider, such as a janitorial or maintenance company. Outfront also conducts a for-profit business in which it charges third-party customers and retains the profits from such transactions, again reflecting its control of not only the physical property but also the revenues that may be generated from the property, thereby exercising a more comprehensive level of control of the property akin to an owner.

More specifically, the agreement gives Outfront the exclusive right to advertise on existing signs and to advertise on new signs designed and installed by Outfront on MBTA property, and to contract with the private parties seeking to advertise on those signs. Outfront also has the exclusive right to install, license, operate, and maintain telecommunications equipment on the MBTA signs, and to contract with those telecommunication companies. Further, Outfront is not paid a flat fee for the services provided. Rather, Outfront is compensated through revenue that it generates from the MBTA signs and telecommunications equipment installed on the signs, and may reap significant, uncapped profits from such operations. Outfront is not merely present on MBTA property to perform services for the MBTA. Rather, it is using the MBTA signs to conduct a for-profit business.