Last year vandals set afire a pink, plastic newsbox on Commonwealth Avenue. The box didn’t burn; it smoked and melted, kind of like the Wicked Witch in the Wizard of Oz.

Firmly affixed to a tree, the destroyed newsbox sat for months on the street. The owner never claimed it. The city, without any legal authority to touch it, let it sit. Finally a frustrated neighbor took matters into her own hands. She borrowed a bolt-cutter and stole to the street. When no one was looking, she snipped the chain, removed the box, and disposed of it.

What she did was illegal, but I for one don’t plan on reporting her to the police. Indeed her circumstances illustrate the problem with newsboxes all over Boston’s streets and sidewalks. Under current law, the city of Boston has no authority over those boxes.

For the second time in two years, the City Council has passed legislation aimed at correcting that problem. The legislation sets out standards for where newsboxes can and cannot be placed. For example, they can’t block sidewalks or public ways. They can’t block handicapped ramps. They can’t be chained to other city property such as trees, street lamps and signposts.

The legislation also dictates how boxes should be constructed and maintained. They need to be well made and of sufficient weight to remain upright. Their doors need to be self closing. They need to be kept free of graffiti and rust. The legislation also gives the city authority to enforce these rules, both through fines and by removing offending boxes altogether.

One would think such commonsense regulations would be non-controversial. When the legislation was passed in 1995, the Mayor, provoked by opposition from a few publishers, concern over First Amendment matters, and disputes within the administration, vetoed it.

Over the last year, many of those issues were resolved. The First Amendment concerns were answered by a Supreme Court that allowed Coral Gables, Florida, to adopt regulations similar to those proposed in Boston. A wide range of publishers agreed that they could comply with such regulations. And within the administration, more people recognized that some basic regulatory structure was needed, and the ordinance passed by the Council fit the bill.

Just a week ago, the City Council passed, 11-1 (with one abstention), another package of regulations virtually similar to those passed in 1995. Based upon a draft submitted to the Council by the Mayor’s office, it appeared that the city had finally achieved consensus on the need to place some controls on newsboxes. Yet, as of this writing, the Mayor’s office has threatened to veto the legislation.

The Mayor’s original draft had proposed that each publisher had to pay the city an annual fee of $5 per box. Revenue was not at issue here; with 600 boxes in downtown Boston, the fees would have amounted to only $3,000. But the Mayor’s staff believed a fee would reduce the number of boxes, a point stressed by the Mayor’s press secretary.

The Council eliminated the fee, risking the Mayor’s veto. It was done for good reasons, however. Courts all over the country have struck down per box fees on First Amendment grounds, reasoning that they are unconstitutional if designed to reduce the availability or diversity of the press. The Mayor’s office fell right into this trap, virtually announcing that the new ordinance was ripe for constitutional challenge.

Trashy looking newsboxes are hardly the most critical issue facing Boston. But they are an important quality of life concern, from both an aesthetic and a safety perspective. It’s also a problem we can resolve with little cost to publishers and without creating a new city bureaucracy. With the Mayor’s consent or not, it’s time to do so.