a local business and that the local business preference protects businesses rather than individuals. Shea contends that the reason that Boston was a market participant in White was that it had a right to protect its own citizens to ensure that the people employed on the project be citizens. This contention is simply unsupported by the White Court’s reasoning. Boston was a market participant because it used its own funds in making contracts for public projects. White, 460 U.S. at 214-15, 103 S.Ct. at 1048. If the Supreme Court had adopted Shea’s reasoning, Boston would be able to require that all projects in Boston (whether publicly funded or not) have a workforce of at least 50% residents as long as it was acting to protect its own citizens. See also W.C.M. Window, 730 F.2d at 495 (<HOLDING>). Boston was a market participant because it
holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause holding that preference rule that applied to all public construction projects violates commerce clause but if it had applied only to projects financed by state there would be no violation holding that exclusionary rule to be applied as a matter of state law is no broader than the federal rule