
Craig Brown (for the City) and Lori Pound (for the Commonwealth) argued that the Coalition to does not have standing to bring the claim because there's no individualized damage/harm.
227. Brown and Pound's position tracks the argument that governments often make to oppose environmental lawsuits. I have never liked the philosophical basis for this argument -- if a member of the public lacks standing to challenge government action, then who does have standing? I understand that there needs to be some way to circumscribe challenges to governmental decision-making, but in a situation like this I'd prefer to see the court have to confront and address the supermajority issue (rather than simply be able to toss the suit on procedural grounds).