MassLive reports the Boston Licensing Board today approved a request by the Red Sox to add more stands selling hard liquor and to increase sales of beer and hard liquor on Yawkey Way before both Sox games and non-baseball events. Also approved: beer in plastic and aluminum bottles.
At a hearing yesterday, Sox officials claimed their interest was public safety, not greater profits, because the moves would reduce crowding in the stadium's concourse, not designed for the sort of traffic it gets today.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
From the previous article:
By dmcboston
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 12:30pm
"Because of their wide mouths, "they empty when thrown nearly as fast as a plastic cup," he said. "
You're throwing it wrong.
If it's truly about greater
By anon!
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 12:44pm
If it's truly about greater safety, and not profits, then am I to assume a majority chunk of the added revenue from these corporate-sponsored kiosks will be handed over to the city?
Public Safety is first
By bulgingbuick
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 12:53pm
I always feel safer among drunks. When threatened I drive to the nearest liquor store. At Fenway more drunks means more personal security and perhaps the return of the trough urinals.
Yes, because
By bosguy22
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 12:56pm
Having more places to buy a drink automatically means everyone is going to drink more, and it means everyone will drive home drunk. How about a little personal responsibility. There's no reason a responsible, law-abiding fan should have to wait 10mins to get a beer and miss half an inning.
Normally I'd agree with you
By anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:05pm
Normally I'd agree with you but sporting events have turned into places to drink and sort of watch the game while playing with a smartphone.
So...
By bosguy22
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:13pm
The City should curb this by not allowing the Sox to open new beer/booze stands and sell plastic bottles?
There has to be a balance to
By anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 2:07pm
There has to be a balance to provide better service for customers without promoting excessive consumption. I think the Sox are working hard toward the access part but not so much on the promoting responsible consumption part.
No bars in Kenmore Square
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 2:47pm
Nope. Not one place to drink. No liquor stores, either. Certainly no bars. If you can't drink at Fenway, well, you can't possibly load up anywhere else before or after the game.
Policies that make sense for isolated, drive-to venues make no sense in Fenway. One could argue that Fenway has a better track record of responsible consumption than, say, the Cask and Flagon ... or other small venues near the park.
Safety
By fan
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 3:27pm
They're promoting responsible consumption by charging exorbitant prices for alcohol.
No not that everyone
By bulgingbuick
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:38pm
will be drinking more. The drunks will drink more and it will mean we will have a more family friendly environment. I suggest they open a hooters on Yawkey Way to add additional ambiance. If I'm paying $10 a beer I might as well see some boobs.
why?
By bosguy22
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:44pm
Will the drunks drink more? There's no proof that having more stands means people will drink more. I could argue that it will reduce drunkenness, as people won't feel the need to buy 2 at a time when they finally get to the front of the line and will drink a little slower. Regardless, getting drunk isn't the end of the world...a lot of people get a nice buzz at the game and behave perfectly fine. If some don't, or drive home impaired, they should be punished. The rest of us don't need to be told how to behave.
Of course you need to be told how to behave!
By Will LaTulippe
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:59pm
I was appointed to this job by somebody you may or may not have voted for to whom I have close personal (and maybe financial) ties! I am your intellectual superior and you will do as I say!
Public Safety
By Anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:37pm
should be the excuse to let bars serve alcohol until 6:00 AM. That way there will no longer be drunks on the road at 2:00 AM.
This new thinking is wonderful!
By anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 1:43pm
I'm guessing the next move will be to increase the number of bars and to extend curfew past 2am so that we don't have too many people crowding existing bars and drinking too quickly! I look forward to that.
Is anyone else puzzled why
By Hyde_Parker
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 2:28pm
Is anyone else puzzled why the Springfield paper feels the need to report on Boston news?
They're moving east
By adamg
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 2:31pm
They actually have a Boston bureau now. The guy who wrote the licensing story used to be a Globe correspondent.
It's actually pretty simple
By roadman
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 3:01pm
Springfield paper reports the story, AP picks it up, Globe copies AP story. Win for Springfield paper - they get AP recognition. Win for AP - they get good story. Win for Globe - they don't have to spend time and money hiring reporters to cover local stories.
a ticket is now needed over 60% of the days/year to use Yawkey
By anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 2:48pm
Biggest issue for a lot of us is losing the right to a public street another 40 times a year. Closing to vehicles is one thing, but now another 40 days a year you cant walk down Yawkey Way without a ticket, and Landsdown and Brooklines sidewalks become overwhelmed by the people trying go around the closed street.
Sidewalks in the area (especially Landsdown and Brookline) must be widened if this is now happening 1 out of 3 days a year now.
So,I have to wait
By GoBruins
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 3:11pm
Until Opening Day to feel safe? I want to be safe NOW!
no, they also are taking the
By anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 4:26pm
no, they also are taking the street over and selling alcohol 40 no baseball days. Dont worry, Yawkey way will be safe for those who purchase tickets to use it. Next door on Brookline st though, that area is open to anyone, even pedestrians without tickets, watch out!
Who's kidding who?
By Anon
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 5:16pm
Oops, Who's on first.
Seriously, wonder if any doctor or the police would agree that liquor consumption increases public safety. Dumbest thing I ever heard.
Hey genius
By bosguy22
Fri, 12/13/2013 - 9:08am
More beer stands does not equal more liquor consumption.
"What's that you say, Mr Henry?"
By Brian Riccio
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 7:04pm
"you want to tear down the Holocaust Memorial for your new pro shop so that fans will have more room than they currently have on Yawkey Way, you know, as a safety issue?...suurrre, go right ahead!"
finally.
By 02132
Thu, 12/12/2013 - 8:58pm
Good to see that people FINALLY started thinking about the children.
Add comment