By Judy Vance
Reporter Staff

Attempting to crack down on the use of public pay telephones for illicit purposes, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) passed a measure last month that prohibits telecommunication companies from erecting new pay phones without the community's consent. The decision came after city officials lobbied for the change, arguing that pay phones are used around Boston for criminal activity, primarily around drug trafficking.

In a March 15 hearing, the BRA's Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve a plan that would place stricter controls over pay phones and, allow residents to weigh-in on the location of where these phones should be installed. The amendment to the city's zoning code makes pay phones subject to a conditional use permit, something that civic groups and city officials can use as leverage to control the installation of new phones on a case by case basis.

"This amendment arose as another tool to help stop crime in our neighborhoods," said Mayor Thomas M. Menino in a press release issued last month. "Outdoor pay phones in certain areas were both a blight on the communities as well as a possible tool for drug dealing. This amendment is another positive step forward in fighting crime."

The new amendment has solid support within city government, but some residents at a recent community meeting in Mattapan voiced some skepticism.

"During the day people are using the phones for legal reasons: Rides, cabs. So before they [phones] go out, I think there should be more research,"said Allan Nelson, who listened to a presentation about the new rules at the March meeting of the B-3 Dorchester-Mattapan Neighborhood Council, held at the Mildred Avenue Community Center.

Nelson was not alone in his thinking.

"I don't know that I would take them out. Sometimes you need them for an emergency," said Rose Simpson of Mattapan.

City officials, speaking after the meeting, worked to reassure residents that the new amendment doesn't eliminate existing pay phones, but provides residents with a tool to block unwanted new phones. Further, the amendment would not apply to pay phones inside businesses or within 20 feet from the main entrance of a business.

"This is not to eliminate pay phones, but it gives the community a voice as to where the pay phones should be installed," said Darryl Smith, chair of the cityof Boston's Neighborhood Response Team for Dorchester and Mattapan, which brought the issue before the BRA with other city agencies.

Smith went on to say that telephone companies were installing pay phones anywhere regardless of their effect on the community.

"In the middle of an area with drugs and prostitution activity, up pops a telephone," said Smith.

A similar response team in East Boston, reviewing the 31 public pay phones in Maverick Square, found that only one had the proper permits, according to Smith.

Prior to this new amendment, loose regulations around pay phones only required an electrical permit to be installed. The new regulation would require a review of the permit by several city agencies including Zoning, The Zoning Appeals Board, if necessary and Inspectional Services. In this process residents would be able to vote on the request, taking into consideration the criminal activity for the area.

While most individuals, like Cynthia A. Clifton of Mattapan, use a personal cellular telephone to make calls while away from home, she was concerned that pay phones still are vital in the community.

"What if you see something and you don't have a pay phone? Hopefully they leave them [pay phones] there and if there is a problem in an area, then remove them," explained Clifton.

Smith stated that the community could negotiate with telephone communication companies to install these phones but restrict the hours when the phones are operational, leaving phones with access to 911 calls only during certain times of the day. Smith reiterated that the new amendment gives residents the power to decide what goes into their community.

"This is a big win for the community," said Smith.