Hey, there! Log in / Register
Legislators agree on plan for 225 new liquor licenses for Boston - most restricted to specific neighorhoods
By adamg on Tue, 09/03/2024 - 10:55pm
The State House News Service reports House and Senate negotiators have drafted a plan to give Boston a new bunch of liquor licenses.
Some 195 of the new licenses would be divided among the city's 13 Zip codes, could only be used in the areas to which they were assigned and would have to be given back to the Boston Licensing Board should their holders close up their businesses. The goal is to ensure neighborhoods where rich national chains don't buy up most of the licenses at prices local restaurant entrepreneurs couldn't possibly afford - currently more than $600,000 for a full liquor license.
Neighborhoods:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Just lift the cap already
There’s absolutely no reason why there should be a cap on liquor licenses for restaurants in the city. Cambridge doesn’t have a cap. Worcester doesn’t have a cap. Plymouth doesn’t have a cap. Why should Boston have a cap? Why should any town in Massachusetts have a cap? Even the handful of other states with caps are nowhere near as onerous as Massachusetts is. I don’t even drink and I know that this is really inhibiting the food scene in the city.
Completely agree. The state
Completely agree. The state legislators from Boston should be pushing for lifting the cap in their own city, but are instead making excuses for their friends in the restaurant industry who do not want to lose the artificial "value" of their licenses. The value should never have been so high. It is a distorted market. And values rise and fall-- any business owner takes this risk.
Instead, the state legislature is supporting crony "capitalism," which is in fact not a free market at all.
The Boston legislators -- and every legislator -- should all be pushing to lift the cap to improve the restaurant scene outside of downtown, enable entrepreneurs, and drive Boston's economy, which provides tax revenue for the entire state. Ask them why they haven't lifted the cap. And Quincy's state rep Tackey Chan, the noted obstructionist who should be shamed for his treatment of Boston on this subject.
The Cap
Archaic law that was put in place by the state because they wanted to keep the Irish (who were in power in the city of Boston at the time) from profiting too much with alcohol sales. It's an old tired law with roots in Hibernophobia that needs to go away. The reason it won't is because the large corporations that have been buying up liquor licenses would lose the value of said license and we all know large corporations have the politicians ear. Money talks and the small independent bar and restaurant owner suffers.
Becasue
A few big reasons
It’s not Bostons laws that
It’s not Bostons laws that are prudish, this is 100% on the state. Same with happy hour and multiple other laws.
Replace Them All With:
1. It's in the political and financial interests of Beacon Hill to keep the cap.
Disagree on a few fronts
1. Boston still has a prudish side, and that comes across in our liquor laws
No... Boston and its mayors have been clamoring for less prudish laws for a decade now. They are stone walled by state legislators at nearly every turn. These are state laws and the state in general is MUCH older, whiter and more conservative than the City of Boston (remember the states repeal of rent control in 1994 despite Boston's popular opposition?) . Some may be originally from Boston but most of Boston isnt from this state (57%) and much of Boston' is made up of immigrants from places with much more lax social customs (Dominican Republic, Cape Verde, Jamaica, Nigeria, etc)... you often see those people flaunting laws in neighborhoods like Roxbury Dorchester and Mattapan. Or there children who are native to Boston but aren't the Bostonians you're talking about.
2. The suburbs hate Boston, especially western MA, and this is their way of holding influence
Yes. And this is racially motivated btw. People fear that the city will become "lawless" or "dangerous" if too many minorities are able to hold a liquor license. This is often coded as becoming "like Chicago/San Francisco/New York/ Baltimore/ DC/ Philly/ Seattle". Cities that are either more integrated or more diverse, especially in their suburbs. They want the city to remain a place where they and their college aged kids are entertained and the mostly minority locals work. And suburban lawmakers and business owners don't want to lose an additional clientele to people seeking new restaurants and bars in Boston anyway. So "no" to removing your cap they say.
3. Partially related to the curley/'Irish' days, when the state felt Boston was too corrupt and took control of a lot of the city decisions. Every time you read "home rule petition' that is a legacy of Boston have to come to the state house and ask for permission to...
Seeing as Irish Americans have long held control over the city and state politics and its image and much of its dining scene.... its more than fair to say this is now a racial method of oppression, not an ethnic one.
As a means to stem competition from minorities and keep social organizing as well as business ownership-- this system has been very effective. Boston, and especially those born and raised in Boston is predominately minority, yet 90%+ of licenses are held by white people and business groups. Many are okay with the system because they benefit from not only financially directly by selling licenses to other in their social circles... but by keeping food and drink prices artificially high. If a new diverse group of owners comes in with different norms and expectations and business networks... it could be very disruptive to established practices. Lets not call it price fixing but rather "understandings".
4. "That's the way it's always been"
Well its funny because it hasn't always been that way and it didn't really matter all that much until 2005 when the liquor license cap was hit.
More realistically its just another way to enable protectionism, cronyism, and back door political deals over our city's social and dining scene.
Everywhere has a de facto cap in the state
The number of licenses is based on the population of the city/town per state law.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter138/Sect...
This is not true. There are
This is not true. There are no caps for many towns.
State legislators point to this law when they want to confuse the public.
IN ADDITION to the law, certain cities and towns (Worcester, Cambridge, predominately vacation towns on the Cape) were granted the ability to set their own caps. Many have no cap.
I can't wait
I plan to dine regularly at the Four Corners neighborhood. Because parking there may be difficult, I will park at South Bay and ride the Fairmount line. It's the Age of Aquarius, man. Peace. Out.