The liquor-license scandal before the Dianne Wilkerson liquor-license scandal

By adamg on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 8:44am

The Dig starts an exploration of the tangled world of Boston liquor licenses with a look at what got us to $350,000 liquor licenses, including the way the last time the legislature gave Boston more licenses for outer neighborhoods not a single one of the licenses actually went to those neighborhoods.

Neighborhoods:

Boston

Topics:

Politics

Free tagging:

Boston Licensing Board

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

replace the word liquor

By sth on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 9:07am.

with marijuana and you'll get to scoop the story 5 years from now. From the story

The current quota system has spawned a hardly regulated secondary market in which the cost of a license can run upwards of $350,000. It has fostered political corruption, bred an incestuous cuddle puddle of greed and hand greasing, and stymied Boston’s growth potential in the long run

will be the same observation for marijuana dispensaries.

you assume

By Marco on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 9:25am.

5 years from now Boston will have ANY dispensaries open, or that King Trump and pot-hating VP Chris Christie don't shut every pot biz in the country down when the GOP takes control of the White House. All those "medical" patients and slick buisnessmen are gonna end up in jail soon.

Put Boston's bastion of

By Simple solution: on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 9:29am.

Put Boston's bastion of integrity, more commonly known as, the BRA in charge of liquor licenses. That ought to clean up the corruption and ensure prosperity in our fair city with that strong fair hand at the helm.

Ironic statement

By ChrisInEastie on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 10:22am.

see my comment below.

A lone sentence stood out amongst the rest.

By ChrisInEastie on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 10:23am.

Daniel Pokaski, then-chairman of the BLB, told reporters there was actually a way for the city to grant licenses to restaurants or bars outside the designated zones. All officials had to do was have “the BRA enlarge one of the covered zones.” Like that, the maps originally meant to favor certain areas—Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Hyde Park, other “urban renewal areas” or “empowerment zones”—were completely ignored.

Once again, you can trace shady moves and "the little guy" getting screwed over directly back to the BRA. Surprise!

License swaps

By anon on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 12:46pm.

What's missing from this history lesson is that many (most?) of these Main Streets district licenses have been routinely granted to existing bars who sell their citywide license for $300K+. Mom-and-pop/small time bar owners sell their bar and the license (often seen as a retirement nest-egg) only to have the purchaser (often a big-time bar owner or developer) immediately cover their purchase price when they sell the bar's existing license. Then, in the same transaction in front of the licensing board, these bar owners get approved for one of the community licenses. The net result is that there are not more license available for those looking to open new establishments in the designated areas of the city.

Nope

By adamg on Thu, 03/17/2016 - 2:27pm.

Which I say as somebody who goes to most of the licensing board meetings.

There have been a few cases like that (Estragon sold its license to a Roslindale restaurant to get a neighborhood full-service license and the new owners of the Lower Mills Pub in Dorchester used their old license for a new place in the South End, rather than selling it), but for the most part, the new licenses have, in fact, been going to the sorts of places for which they were intended - from the Haley House's new pizza place in Dudley Square to Vietnamese and Mexican places along Dot. Ave.

The main issue has been the lack of applicants from pretty much anywhere in Mattapan or Roxbury outside of Dudley Square, not waterfront bars snapping up still more licenses, which is a step in the right direction when compared to the 2006 licenses.