1. Mostly males in studio apartments
2. While they claimed they would not house sex offenders, they did not explain the vetting process
3. They also said a CORI check would only go back 5 years
4. They would not commit to excluding violent felons
5. Sobriety is not required
6. They would have security and social workers on site
7. They would not share their eviction policy
8. The transfer from the YMCA was not yet final
9. They allegedly claimed not to need approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals

Phase 3: The Revised Proposal

In early February, 2023, we learned of a “revised proposal” and that small meetings were taking place with certain individuals in the neighborhood. It was not clear who received an invitation. At the end of February, a Signup link for a series of small meetings with St Francis and POUA (approximately 7-8 meetings with up to 20 people each) was shared on the Facebook Charlestown Group. A few days after that, the link was published on the project website.

On March 6 2023, one of the small group meetings was recorded by POUA and St. Francis upon request from the attendees. They posted the recording online here (use passcode: sSv9$R%= )

The proposal was changed as follows: 

• 120 total units
  • 24 Income Restricted
  • 32 “Permanent Affordable Housing” units
  • 64 Permanent Supportive Housing

After demanding a transparent public meeting, one was scheduled with the Charlestown Neighborhood Council for April 13, 2023. This time the proponents brought in a security consultant, a representative from Maloney Properties, a doctor who worked with the homeless who was in favor of the plan and the room was once again packed. POUA’s Bill Grogan apologized for the prior meeting and acknowledged that they created a lack of trust in the community. The overwhelming majority of attendees still opposed the project. 

Video of the April 13 meeting is online here. We counted over 250 people in attendance. At Large City Councilor Erin Murphy posted a Photo of the Crowd here. At one point, the crowd erupted in applause to show how many opposed the project (see video segment here). Councilor Murphy spoke and expressed concerns about the project (here). 

Despite taking 2 hours and 20 minutes, the meeting touched on only 3 of our 12 crowd-sourced questions. More detail in video description. Click on timestamps to navigate to specific parts.

On April 21, 2023, City Councilor Gabriela Coletta wrote to oppose the project. On May 1, 2023 several dedicated community members organized the Neighborhood Voice Alliance, a 501(c)(3), to collect donations for a lawsuit. There were no further public meetings. The NVA started looking for an attorney and began holding fundraisers.

Phase 4: Revised Again, Quickly Approved

Over the summer of 2023, the Project Proponents’ website continued gathering comments, most of which were in strong opposition. On July 14, 2023 The Helm Proponents wrote that they were “advised” not to hold any more meetings prior to filing despite making prior commitments to hold a meeting. On July 28, 2023 old comments on the Helm site became inaccessible. This was fixed about 2 weeks after we reported it. On August 31, 2023 they cleared their website of content and disabled new comments. On September 6, 2023 they filed a Letter of Intent with the BPDA.

Finally on September 29, 2023 they filed a Project Notification Form

• • 100 total units. Now 48 PSH Units. Other units income-restricted.
  • Still no requirement for sobriety or treatment

While PSH is officially is officially stipulated for “disabilities,” only 4 out of 48 PSH units are marked wheelchair-accessible on the floor plan. One more unit is marked for “hearing / visually impaired.”

As of September 30, their site at www.thehelmonthird.com became inaccessible

On October 19, 2023 BPDA held a Zoom Meeting about the project. The name of the project was changed from “The Helm” to “The Independence.” They brought in a new security consultant. Our analysis indicates at least 78% of commenters did not support the project, even though a minority of supporters were afforded a large share of the speaking time. The video recording and our readout is here. Many letters in opposition were also sent to the BPDA directly. There are at least 251 pages of comments on the BPDA website.

On December 14, 2023 the BPDA board held a meeting that lasted for 7 hours and was Zoom-only.  They took agenda items out of order which made it hard to keep track of what time the vote would happen. The project was not heard until 9:19pm. Public comments were not allowed. Chat was disabled. Councilor Colletta spoke (see video here). She once again confirmed that she heard form more constituents in opposition than support and said they feel “this process is broken.” She asked for an accountability mechanism like an independent oversight committee. One board member asked what the community concerns were. They allowed Bill Grogan from POUA to answer this. His answer made it seem as if all of our concerns were addressed.

The project was approved. The memo made no mention of Councilor Coletta’s demand of an independent oversight committee. Legal lease transfer details were recorded here.

Phase 5 – the First Lawsuit

On February 6, 2024, the NVA filed a lawsuit against Mayor Wu, BPDA Director Jemison, the BPDA board, SFH and POUA.  The lawsuit was financed by community donations. The NVA presented 5 counts based on the following:

1. Require the BPDA to follow Article 80 and set aside the project approval until Article 80 is fully followed
2. Failure of the BPDA to follow the Open Meeting Law at the December 2023 meeting because it was a “done deal” decided behind closed doors, they didn’t allow public comments and improperly noticed the meeting
3. Violation of the public procurement statute (M.G.L. c. 30B) by failing to solicit public bids through an open RFP process
4. Violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by continuing to have public meetings on zoom and hand selecting speakers, not allowing public comments, not making speakers identify where they live, not being able to see who is on the meeting and not including chat comments as part of the public record
5. Unlawful designation of $9 million in public monies for the project through Mayor’s Office on Housing.

The complaint itself is 45 pages long and outlines the history with great detail.  Also included in the complaint was the fact that the Y repeatedly failed to pay rent to the city and the city never took any action against them. Read the full filing document  here.

On March 5, 2024, Mayor Wu visited the CNC and fielded multiple Helm-related questions. Video here.

On December 2, 2024, the lawsuit was dismissed in its entirety.  The judge ruled the relief related to the failure to follow Article 80 (Count 1) was “premature”.  The other counts were outright dismissed. The ruling is here.

The Defendants agreed to notify the NVA lawyer when the permit was issued in exchange for the Plaintiffs not appealing the dismissal.

Phase 6: The Building Permit

The building permit was issued on July 23, 2025 and notably states in the work description “Change of occupancy from multi purposed armed service YMCA including 149 residential Hotel rooms…to 149 residential apartments.” The glaring issue with this permit is that the BPDA Board only voted for 100 apartments, not 149. The NVA appealed the issuance of the building permit to the Boston Zoning Board of Appeal.

On October 28, 2025, a public hearing was held on the appeal of the permit. Despite the lack of Article 80 process and the nearly 50% increase in apartments beyond what the BPDA allowed, the Zoning Board denied the appeal.

Phase 7: The Second Lawsuit

A new attorney named Dan Hill was engaged to handle the lawsuit related to the Zoning Law.  A complaint was filed on January 2, 2026.  The Defendants are the Zoning Board of Appeal, the BRA/BPDA, the Constitution Inn, LLC and the Planning Office for Urban Affairs.  The Defendants have filed Answers and Discovery is ongoing.