Back Bay's `win' a free press loss

13 April 2001

Every morning I grab some change from my desk and, dog at my side, walk three blocks to buy the day's newspaper.

It's a pleasant little routine, particularly in springtime. Unfortunately, it's a routine that's about to end. The city, at the urging of a residents' group, has decided to ban newsboxes in the Back Bay.

The reason for the ban? The Back Bay was built back in the 19th century. The city has in place an architectural board to protect the historic area: It regulates things like building heights, changes to exteriors and even minutiae such as the color of paint that can be used on brownstone steps. The residents argue that, since there weren't any newsboxes back in the 19th century, IPSO FACTO they shouldn't be allowed today.

It's a silly argument. After all, few of those same residents are pushing for a ban on cars in favor of horses. Stop lights, walk signals, telephone poles and mailboxes all speak to the everyday intrusions of modernity - intrusions that are far more noticeable than a few newsboxes on street corners.

Silly or not though, the argument's a winner. Four years ago, residents of Beacon Hill used the same logic to persuade their neighborhood's architectural board to ban newsboxes. Two days ago, the Back Bay Architectural Commission said that it too, would follow suit.

Of course, no one really wants to turn the clock back 150 years. Back Bay residents would recoil at the notion of giving up their oversized SUVs for a horse and buggy. As most people recognize, the historic preservation argument is really just a ruse. The chair of the architectural board implicitly acknowledges as much when he admits that mailboxes - just as historically inaccurate as newsboxes - will never be prohibited.

So why the ire with newsboxes?

They can get messy. People pick up newspapers, the give-away ones in particular, and then drop them on the ground, creating litter. And - horrors! - some of the newsboxes are pink.

If all that was at stake here was some prissy sense of taste, it wouldn't be a big deal. The rest of Boston already thinks of the Back Bay and Beacon Hill as snooty and exclusive enclaves of wealth. The newsbox ban just feeds into that stereotype.

But this is about more than snobbery. This is about a free and vibrant press.

In the time leading up to the Revolutionary War, newspapers and pamphlets played a critical role in building support for the notion that Massachusetts and the rest of the colonies should rebel from their colonial masters. The British regarded those publications as treasonous and tried to ban them in any way they could. To get the word out, publishers had to resort to all sorts of measures, some overt, some furtive.

Out of that experience was born the notion that it's not enough just to let newspapers print what they want. Real freedom of the press means giving publishers a right to get that information into the hands of readers. To do that, the newspapers and magazines of today rely on street-corner hawkers, doorstep delivery, racks inside stores and, yes, newsboxes.

Boston's two established newspapers, the Herald and the Globe will not, in truth, be much affected by a newsbox ban. With long publishing histories and good financial backing, both papers have strong distribution systems.

But smaller newspapers, those that are less financially secure, or those that are read by a more limited audience, will be hurt.

Consider the Boston Phoenix, for example. A free weekly, the Phoenix appeals to younger adults with a mix of left-wing politics and entertainment. The paper depends critically on newsboxes; few in its audience subscribe and only a handful of retail outlets will consent to carry a free paper that, after all, makes them no money.

And the Phoenix is not alone. The Improper Bostonian and Editorial Humor both rely on newsboxes. Ban newsboxes, and you essentially ban those publications.

It's an extreme and unnecessary step, particularly so because a middle-ground solution is easy to imagine. Several years ago Boston passed an ordinance that regulated the maintenance of newsboxes. Since then, the street clutter from newsboxes has improved markedly. Even better would be for Boston to follow the model of New York City, which has newsbox "condos" on each corner that are available to all kinds of publications: paid and free, establishment and alternative.

But that's not good enough for the Back Bay. The neighborhood association will tolerate "no structure on the sidewalk, no matter how tastefully designed," say its leaders.

That intransigence, that refusal to tolerate any compromise, is disappointing. And it is deeply disturbing that, in making its decision, the city's architectural board pointedly refused to consider the First Amendment implications of a ban. Instead, we're allowing aesthetics to run amok, using the pretext of history to trample without care on a free press.