Mintz’s Elissa Flynn-Poppey led the court fight against rent control

The state’s real estate industry can breathe a little easier now thanks to Elissa Flynn-Poppey and her team at Mintz.

Flynn-Poppey, chair of the firm’s government law practice, led the legal fight against a ballot question that would have mandated rent control across the state. Advocates claimed such an urgent measure was necessary because of high housing costs, while opponents said it would worsen the crisis by deterring developers from building new apartments.

Voters won’t get the opportunity to decide, at least not this year: The Supreme Judicial Court stopped the question from advancing with a ruling last month saying the question’s exemption for religious properties violated the state constitution.

It was one of the issues that Flynn-Poppey flagged after she was hired by a coalition of opponents to pursue a legal challenge in January. Flynn-Poppey, one of a few attorneys in Boston who specializes in ballot questions, said she was recruited by Lynda Tocci at Dewey Square Group and Dan Cence at Issues Management Group, strategists with the industry-funded opposition campaign.

Her team at Mintz included Ed Daley, Kadie Martin, and Michael Molstad; Daley handled the oral arguments before the SJC in May.

“There’s no way one person could have done this in four months,” Flynn-Poppey said. “Because I’ve been doing them for so long, I really wanted to bring other people along.”

Her fascination with ballot questions dates back to her time as deputy general counsel in then-governor Mitt Romney’s administration, when she helped prepare fiscal impact analyses for these proposals.

She continued that fascination after joining Mintz in 2005, while working with mentor Bob Popeo on a variety of government-related legal matters. Since then, she’s been involved with fights over the so-called millionaires tax, ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft, transgender rights, and nurse staffing ratios for hospitals.

Ballot questions typically don’t get the same level of vetting as traditional legislation, making them vulnerable to constitutional challenges. She knows rent-control advocates could try again with a better written proposal in two years. The opposition, she added, will be ready.

“They have major momentum and they’ve raised a significant amount of funds,” Flynn-Poppey said. “There is such a strong coalition now that I think they’ll continue to fight it going forward.”

Matias seeks biz support for housing push

Juana Matias had but one ask at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce last week: Keep pushing politicians to implement more prohousing policies.

Matias, Governor Maura Healey’s new housing secretary, surely knew she was preaching to the proverbial choir. But she wanted to reinforce that business groups’ advocacy makes a difference.

“When the business community shows up and speaks with one voice about the importance of housing, people listen,” Matias told the chamber crowd. “The next generation should not have to leave Massachusetts to find opportunity.”

The secretary’s remarks were followed by a panel discussion about prohousing policies already in place or under consideration. Panelists included Doug Howgate, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation; Jenny Schuetz, vice president at Arnold Ventures, and Tamara Small, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts.

Small said she was encouraged by Beacon Hill’s all-hands-on-deck approach. She noted that lawmakers tucked zoning reforms into the main state budget, and approved a supplemental budget that includes a sales tax exemption for housing construction materials.

Small later noted the need for infrastructure improvements like more commuter rail extensions and expanding the Boston region’s water and sewer system. Schuetz suggested legalizing townhouses on reasonably small lots, while Howgate argued for linking state school construction aid to a community’s willingness to allow more housing.

Afterward, chamber chief executive Jim Rooney vowed to follow up with Matias.

“We really need to match the urgency of the solutions to the crisis,” Rooney said. “That means being even bolder than we have been.”

Saga ends over shuttered Cambridge eatery

The saga is finally over for restaurateur Skip Sack, now that he has reached a $1.1 million settlement with Harvard University that wraps up a nearly decade-long legal battle.

Sack and his company, Classic Restaurant Concepts, were best known for their pubs, Kinsale in Boston, and Asgard in Cambridge. But it was the fate of a short-lived third restaurant, En Boca, that kept Classic and Harvard in court for years.

Classic sued Harvard in 2017, right around the time En Boca closed down. Classic claimed Harvard duped it by prompting the company to sign a lease in 2015 at 8 Holyoke St. in Cambridge, just outside Harvard Square, knowing the street would be shut down for two years for construction. The landlord, Classic claimed, did not provide adequate warning about the massive project next door at what’s known as the Smith Campus Center, other than to downplay the potential negative impact.

“The motto at Harvard is ‘Veritas,’” Sack said. “They were anything but truthful. . . . They never told us they were going to close the street but negotiated the lease full well knowing they were going to close the street.”

Had Sack and Classic known about the construction, they say they never would have invested more than $2.6 million in the space to open the Mediterranean-style restaurant in 2016. Harvard officials, meanwhile, fought back, saying lease terms didn’t allow Classic to close without making its remaining payments.

Sack estimated that Classic lost $700,000 on operations during its nine months in business. His tally for the total damage is much higher. He estimates today that collective losses reach $4.3 million, after backing out the $1.125 million settlement amount. (That number, among other things, includes legal costs and interest on a loan he took out to prepare the Holyoke Street space.)

After the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Sack said Classic didn’t have enough money to keep the Kinsale and Asgard going at such a slow time because of the En Boca losses; they were forced to close, too.

A Superior Court judge ruled against Sack’s company, and for Harvard. So he appealed. The state Appeals Court primarily sided with Sack in 2024, and sent the case back to Superior Court for further review. On the eve of a trial this past spring, Sack decided to settle; he said he was worried after the judge narrowed the case to Harvard’s benefit. (Harvard declined to comment.)

Is Sack relieved it’s all over? He still sounds frustrated.

“I had no leverage,” Sack added. “They had all the leverage. . . . It’s a lesson in injustice.”

Next up: soccer in Everett

Now that the FIFA World Cup has finished, New England Revolution president Brian Bilello can turn his focus back to another important project: the Revs’ proposed soccer stadium in Everett.

The Kraft Group’s stadium would go up at the site of a shuttered power plant overlooking the Mystic River, across the street from the Encore Boston Harbor casino. Kraft officials are expected to host an informal meeting this Thursday at Everett City Hall to discuss a waterfront park proposed for the property.

In an interview with The Boston Globe, Bilello mused about what bringing the World Cup and its fans to Massachusetts means for the Revs project. The goal is to build a 25,000-seat stadium, with as many as 35,000 for concerts, so the Revs no longer need to share Gillette Stadium with the New England Patriots, the Krafts’ other sports team.

“Maybe this [the World Cup] gets people a little more excited about it,” said Bilello, also a board member with the local FIFA organizing committee, Boston Soccer 2026. “I think people are really starting to understand the real joy that a soccer fan brings to an event.”

Boston-area soccer fans will have to wait a few years before they can take the Orange Line to a Revs game. Not only does the Kraft Group need to go through a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act review, a process that started this spring, the power plant needs to come down before stadium construction can begin. City permits are also required.

“It’s about a three-year total process, from taking down the power plant, and then building the actual stadium,” Bilello said. “Now, we’re just doing all the boring stuff we need to do. That’s all progressing really well.”

That puts the most likely opening date for the stadium in 2030 — maybe just in time for the 2031 Women’s World Cup.

Globe reporters Michael Silverman and Chris Serres contributed to this report.