Hey, there! Log in / Register
Election roundup: Consalvo wants to ban outside money, Pressley wants more liquor licenses
By adamg on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 5:21pm
Rob Consalvo says he just wants to "prevent shadowy groups funded by anonymous donors from dominating and meddling in the race" for mayor and today called on his opponents to either reject money from these wraith-like groups or donate half the amount to the One Fund.
"In principle, sounds like a good idea," the Conley campaign tweeted in reply.
Meanwhile, WBUR reports a group called Democrats for Education Reform (also see) is backing John Connolly, who, like them, wants more charter schools (Consalvo is against lifting the ban on charter schools). It's hired several field coordinators and round up 150 volunteers to promote Connolly.
At-large Councilor Ayanna Pressley went on Greater Boston recently to discuss her push for more liquor licenses for Boston:
The Dorchester Reporter reports that mayoral candidates Dan Conley would continue Mayor Menino's fight against Wal-Mart in Boston. Consalvo and Bill Walczak said they'd be willing to consider letting the chain move in, but only if workers were allowed to unionize.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
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
Of course
An insider what's do ban outside money. His pockets will get lined by mumbles and his cronies.
liquor licenses
Full disclosure: although Ayanna is an at-large city councillor, she lives in my neighborhood.
That said, she is right on about mom and pop restaurants needing liquor licenses. They need them to survive, and it's not like they are bars open until 2 AM. There's a great little place around the corner from me, but if I want to eat In, I also want a glass of wine or a cocktail. Otherwise I'll just get take out or go somewhere else.
logical move by Rob...
Consalvo isn't getting the Stand for Children endorsement. He's not getting any union endorsements. He's not likely to get the support of a single advocacy organization from environmentalists to pet lovers to support him. It's certainly convenient that he'd be pushing for this. If it wasn't so blatantly self-motivated, it might actually be a reasonably good idea...
...other than the possibility that environmentalists, educators, unions, and pet lovers might actually have something of value to add in a crowded and confusing field.
Oh wait! I stand corrected. Will Rob Consalvo give back the $100 check from the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation? Or are direct contributions outside the pledge?
Liquor licenses are a double
Liquor licenses are a double edged sword. They help to make sure that taxes are paid , and product bills. They are very rigid.Books must come out and see the light of day. Also , what happens when the ratio of food to liquor sales shift, and the restaurant ( maybe with a protected sort of license ) becomes a drinking joint with a hot dog griller behind the bar rather than a real restaurant? Alcohol brings in strange people , and you need liability insurances. I am not sure on this, but there used to be a restaurant on the fish pier, the No Name we called it , that didnt have a license, but you could bring your own stuff in, if you ate and behaved.
There are ways to deal with that
Restaurants that get liquor licenses typically get a restriction on their license that they can only serve liquor with meals.
The three-man BPD licensing division checks for that - restaurants are forever having to show up at City Hall to explain to the licensing board why they were caught with tables with bottles of beer or glasses of liquor and no food on them. The detectives even check the kitchens to see if anybody's cooking food in them (or if it's near closing time, whether the ovens are still warm).
In fact, earlier this year, a bunch of bars that for some reason had once asked for food-serving licenses were cited for not serving food. In some cases, they applied for a license modification that would turn them into true bars; in others, they agreed to put in a hot-dog grill or popcorn machine.
As for BYOB, it's illegal in Boston, natch.
Nothing you have stated
justifies the current bureaucratic practice of arbitrairly restricting the number of estabilshments that can serve liquor.
By all means, have basic rules in place for those who want to serve liquor. But don't tell a business they can't serve liquor because somebody has decided that too many other places in the area already do.
Amen
But now you have a situation where politicians can be anti-new licenses and it seems like they're "protecting" their constituents....and you have have restaurants companies who own several places in Boston (and in turn, several $300k-plus licenses) who are protecting a pretty sizable investment by being against new licenses.
You have to level the playing
You have to level the playing field then, those licenses cost a lot of money . That's whats keeps the proprietors honest to insure they pay for product and taxes. Alcohol is mostly a cash business , now maybe with food the credit card thing. The value of the license is collateral that the bills get paid. Otherwise they could bury the place in debt and walk with the cash. There is a lot more to this then the whims of people to have a glass of wine with their meal.
Huh?
The proprietors are honest because the liquor license costs a lot of money?
If they buried the place in debt and walked away, the debtors would sue for the license. See the Todd English debacle in Charlestown.