Beehive owner won't be buzzing around Fort Hill

Iseut reports that after she heard complaints about Darryl Settle's proposed restaurant at 85 Centre St., she called him to offer her support. But:

... He said he has decided to abandon the 85 Centre Street project because it was a risk not worth taking when faced with such a negative reaction from a few people near to 85 Centre. He has many other opportunities. ...

Settles had been scheduled for a Boston Licensing Board hearing on Wednesday for his request for a liquor license, but he withdrew his application.



Free tagging: 



And the story about Centre street just made the Herald today... Seems a weird location anyway - kind of the middle of nowhere...

Lived on Fort Hill for a bit.

By on

Lived on Fort Hill for a bit. Considering the neighborhood doesn't have a grocery store or even a bodega within walking distance, I can't blame the neighbors for not making someone else's party their priority.

The former Ace's Market

By on

Forget what the new name is, but there's one store on the hill. The property on Centre St was also a store/deli until about 2007. I used to go there to get newspapers and coffee and stuff. I'd love to see another store there.

Where do you live?

By on

Yes, the immediately surrounding area is all residential, very quiet, more open space than most anywhere else this close to downtown, etc. But it's certainly not in the middle of nowhere. I live on Fort Hill, and it's a short T trip or drive or walk to just about anywhere. When I worked near Government Center, my commute was 11 minutes. Hardly the middle of nowhere.

Point of View

I walk by the location often. NO, it's not in Kansas. But it's not Dudley square. The location has no foot traffic except for residents. It's not an easy walk from Roxbury Crossing or Dudley unless you know where you're going. And if you had 100+ people driving, they would have no where to park. It's a great location for a corner store; but a night club???

It would've been nice had Mr. Settles talked with the neighbors

It would have been nice had Mr. Settles talked with the neighbors in advance of the hearing. Instead, the first notice I heard was the afternoon of the day of the scheduled hearing, from a neighbor—on the other side of the hill—who wanted to know what I thought of the idea.

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Settles got a vociferously negative reaction. I think, perhaps, Mr. Settles was relying upon his reputation for righteous prior deeds rather than on respect for, and dialog with, the neighbors.

And, frankly, this use of the word abutters (as in, the negative, nimby people on either side and across the street) conveniently dismisses the concerns of these taxpayers by dividing their issues from those of the rest of the neighborhood. And, in point of fact, there is opposition up and down Centre Street, not just from the beleaguered residents adjacent to the site.

Liquor license? Since when did the mention of a new liquor license not issue in a fight? Who are we kidding here?

2 am closing? Seven days a week? Just so the arrivistes can remake the neighborhood to include their idea of urban amenities? If they wanted a neighborhood possessed of "those very things" that make for "sustainable, stimulating, appealing urban living," then they could have moved to such a neighborhood. Instead they moved to sleepy non-commercial Fort Hill where the closest supermarket is way across the wasteland of Jackson Square at the Stop and Shop.

Mr. Settles's proposed restaurant would be the only commercial establishment on Fort Hill, except for Aces at Eliot Square (or whatever it's called now), the market on Marcella, and the liquor store at Cedar and Washington. (What am I leaving out? Oh, the Ashur Restaurant next to the mosque at Roxbury and Elmwood.)

The "church" which owned the property just before Settles bought the place used their "religious" status to install an otherwise forbidden parking lot and curb cut. The Vulcans tried to establish a social club, with liquor license. That wasn't going to happen.

The only thing that was appropriate to the location was when some nice local neighbors tried to make a go of a neighborhood store. Newspapers, coffee, Boar's Head, cigarettes, and lottery tickets weren't enough to make it. The neighborhood would not permit take away food.

As for all these neighbors who are going to walk to Settles's place for drinks, jazz, and a nice meal? These are the same neighbors who drive four or five blocks down from the hill to park their cars on the same stretch of Centre Street and then walk to the Roxbury Crossing T Station? Yes, I think they are.

Are you drunk?

What a waste of space. So, he didn't pander to neighbors? So, what? He is a business person who thought there was a need/want for a place to hang out.

Too bad for you. He chose, otherwise. Live with the barren wasteland you call home.

Barren Wasteland?--I think not

By on

John Keith-

My good friend. I think you seem to have become very angry (okay, many of us who run for office to do good things are angry at the status quo) but this anger at the Fort Hill residents is misplaced. I have lived and worked in Fort Hill for years, most recently living on Highland Street in Summer 2008. It is a great area, with nice friendly neighbors who look out for each other. It actually reminds me of the way the South End was 15 or so years ago, back when people cared more about architectural detail than how much square footage everything had.

There are some points to the NIMBY attitude on the hill, but isn't that their prerogative? I proposed putting a restaurant and community gathering place into the old plantation building at the top of the hill owned by Mel King's brother. I met with the neighbors, we talked about different ideas, they indicated they didn't want a restaurant and we dropped the idea. The building still stands abandoned, dangerous and an eyesore, but the 'democratic process' worked. The people I know (including tenants) love living on the Hill, and I think it is a great area, otherwise I wouldn't own property there.

Just because not everyone wants what the South End has, doesn't make them bad or stupid, just wanting something different in life. You (of all people!) should appreciate that. Not everything in life needs to be real estate values (My South End properties have gone up in value, my Fort Hill ones down), but I will agree with you that if amenities like a local bar, restaurant and grocery store went in, that the values would go up. But then, maybe the people that make the neighborhood great might not be able to afford it anymore and have to move out, sort of like the South End......

I definitely do NOT want

By on

I definitely do NOT want Highland Park becoming the South End! Something more like Rozzie Square would work for me.

Not fair

eeka, that's not fair! I did a search of this forum and found nothing matching my name up with "Roxbury" (well, except for your previous comment accusing me of the same thing ...) Also, yes, I am generally awesome.

Further, it's irrelevant to this conversation. In fact, I was supporting the neighborhood by saying it might be improved by the proposal. Mr Settles seems to be a smart guy who a lot of people like. He's done a good job at The BeeHive (across the street from me) and his proposal to build housing on an empty lot on Massachusetts Avenue was forward-thinking and impressive. (There was some disapproval of that project, as well, if memory serves, which only shows, again, that, no matter what, people don't like things.)

I don't know what Kevin McCrea was getting at, esp. the part about, "not everything has to have South End property values." For one thing, restaurants don't increase property values, so my point wasn't that it should be supported for that reason. I live on Tremont Street in the midst of restaurants and my property value is certainly not what it would be on any of the other 'Eight Streets'.

Regarding my comment, all I was pointing out was that there seemed to be a sense of entitlement on the part of some residents of Boston's neighborhoods that "either meet our demands or get out". I think I misunderstood or over-reacted to what Jonas Prang was saying, in this specific case. However, he didn't seem to be criticizing the proposal because of it size or purpose but because the developer didn't come hat in hand. This, at least, is better than what happens in the Back Bay, where the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay starts each response with, "No, and here's why ..."

Fort Hill is a small neighborhood and certainly it doesn't need development out of proportion to its surroundings, on that, everyone can agree.

Each proposal should be considered on its merits.

On a somewhat related note, there was a conversation on here about plans to bring a restaurant/bar to the corners of Massachusetts and Commonwealth avenues, in Back Bay. I supported it because I'm familiar with the other bar the owner runs, in Dorchester. However, in the Back Bay, that intersection is a weird hybrid of commercial (Store 24 (actually, its replacement), Eliot Hotel) and residential. It's not necessarily the best location for a restaurant/bar. If memory serves, it was a liquor store (but marketed as "fine wines") at one point. It's been empty for what may have been years. I wouldn't choose it as a place for a restaurant/bar, especially if it ends up being more "bar" than restaurant".

For what it's worth, I never call neighbors' responses "NIMBYism". I agree with Mr. Prang, I think it makes things too simplistic I don't know what pejorative means). I've seen too much good come out of activism to see it as a bad thing. If you want to read about people who do feel that many Boston residents go too far in their anti-development quest, I suggest checking out the forum.

I didn't read all of Mr Prang's post, actually, until just now. Yeah, proposing a 2 AM closing time would be a non-starter for just about any neighbor.

And, I don't know if he was drunk; I do know that I WAS!

It's not a barren wasteland

By on

It's not a barren wasteland but definitely too quiet for being in the city.

Wow! People like you and

By on

Wow! People like you and your neighbors are total idiots. You just lost a golden opportunity and you won't have another like it any time soon.



Why is it a 'golden opportunity'? What do the neighbors get out of it?

A place to gather

My friends and I have chatted at length about what it would take to open a neighborhood bar in one of the vacant storefronts of our local village. A live music space for our friends to jam in and a place to gather for a pint amongst friends would be so very welcome. We currently have to head to Davis Square, rather than just walk from our homes.

There is a reason why pubs and restaurants are part and parcel of a thriving urban neighborhood. Want something different? Move to a dry suburb where you have to drive to a strip mall.

Open your own bar

Well, a place you describes sounds great, but it's difficult to know what kind of establishment will actually be there. The Beehive was advertised to be such a local club. Now it's the 'go to' place to be hip and bee seen, and is a place that suburban people flock to more than any locals (most of tend to avoid it).

So a nice local place to hang out sounds like fun, but there's no way to guarantee that's what will go in. Once a business has certain licenses, they can do whatever they want.

What the neighbors get out of it

By Iseut on


Money - because more of the money spent in a local economy stays in that local economy.


A nice place which is in walking distance of home to go for dinner and a glass of wine when you don't feel like cooking.

A nice place which is in walking distance of home to go for Sunday brunch so you don't have to walk to another neighborhood which is fine sometimes but not all the time.

Increased foot traffic which increases neighborhood security.

He did talk to neighbors

By on

Maybe not enough, but he did go to some neighborhood meetings. He also has a lot of friends on the hill, since he used to live here, and he talked to people.

Personally, I'm not too crazy about the 2am closing and such, but would like to see something go into the building that's been empty for so long.

1)Settles provided his cell

By on

1)Settles provided his cell phone number to residents who wanted to talk with him and several members of his organization met with at least one of the neighborhood associations, which wrote a letter of support. Get active and you'll know what's going on.
2)Highland Park is not the suburbs, sleepy as it may be currently. It is the city and those who would rather not have city amenities in the city should move to the suburbs.
3)Settles bar would have been the first well-known and legitimate of many viable new commercial enterprises in the district. They won't all arrive at the same time but they will come.
4)"Abutter" is a decidedly neutral word. It's kinda like kilogram or heartbeat: completely neutral until modified by an adjective. Or in other cases, a perception.
5)The closest supermarket, actually, is Tropical Foods, in Dudley. Too arriviste for you? Or too far to walk?
6)Three vocal people (one of whom is not even strictly an abutter) shut down the proposal with no discussion or negotiation. That's all everyone else wanted: discussion and negotiation.

Fisking our way to peace and tranquility

Dear Iseut,

This thread is soon to sink beneath the succeeding waves of universalhubishness, so perhaps this post is fruitless. Though late to this thread, I still thought it wise to give your post a good fisking.

1)Settles provided his cell phone number to residents who wanted to talk with him and several members of his organization met with at least one of the neighborhood associations, which wrote a letter of support. Get active and you'll know what's going on.

I pay my taxes, I sweep my walk, I rake my leaves, I shovel my snow, I clean up my dogs' business, but I'm not civilly obligated to attend your meetings. (Oh, and I vote, too.) Mr. Settles did not provide "his cell phone number to residents who wanted to talk:" to wit, I didn't get it. But then, I'm not really interested in Mr. Settles's cell phone. I'm interested in timely notification of potentially significant changes to the character of the neighborhood.

2)Highland Park is not the suburbs, sleepy as it may be currently. It is the city and those who would rather not have city amenities in the city should move to the suburbs.

Highland Park, Roxbury Highlands, and the recently arrived Boston Highlands—but, I'll just settle for dull Fort Hill—has a status quo. For better or worse, it's what each of us chose when we moved here. It is up to those wanting to change the status quo to justify that change, not the other way 'round. I ain't movin'.

And, can we keep this discussion specific. We are not talking about some nebulous utopia of (for you) urban amenities, we are talking about a particular bar & restaurant on a particular block.

3)Settles bar would have been the first well-known and legitimate of many viable new commercial enterprises in the district. They won't all arrive at the same time but they will come.

"Many viable new commercial enterprises in the district"? Looking at the (6MB pdf) zoning map for Fort Hill, which is entirely residential or open space, I'm not seeing where all this commercial enterprise is going to be sited by right. I'll give you the imminent upheaval in Jackson Square as a site for viable commercial enterprise.

But, every other bit of commercial activity on Fort Hill is going to need zoning approval.

To amend my earlier list of "Commerce on the Hill," I should add the contractor's yard at the very high numbers of Highland Street, opposite the DPW yard, the Furniture EyeSore at Marcella & Washinton, Saak's storefront realty office, the bar at Valentine and Washington, the truck/equipment yard at Valentine and Thornton, and, of course, the Bartlett Street yards and the Automobile Graveyard across the street. I'm sure there are isolated other bits, but there's only the one bar, one liquor store, and one restaurant.

4)"Abutter" is a decidedly neutral word. It's kinda like kilogram or heartbeat: completely neutral until modified by an adjective. Or in other cases, a perception.

Maybe so, but watch how the word gets used to divide US from THEM. See point #6.

5)The closest supermarket, actually, is Tropical Foods, in Dudley. Too arriviste for you? Or too far to walk?

Not so fast. From 85 Centre Street (to pick a random spot), the distance to the JP Stop and Shop is 0.6 miles, but to Tropical Foods it's 0.9 miles. So it depends upon where you're lugging those groceries to. I realize this is below the belt, but...I wouldn't really know, I do all my shopping in Chinatown.

6)Three vocal people (one of whom is not even strictly an abutter) shut down the proposal with no discussion or negotiation. That's all everyone else wanted: discussion and negotiation.

"Three vocal people"! One of them not even "strictly an abutter"! (Who presumably, therefore, has less right to speak). Here is this non-neutral rhetorical use of the word abutter. In any event, it would not have been those three people, it would have been more had the preliminary process been more seeking of neighborhood opinion.

And, you said it yourself, Mr. Settles can take care of himself. He made a play. He got a taste of things to come. He's moving to other opportunities. And, if he can leave the neighborhood thinking it missed out on a great opportunity to bask in his luminary glow, so much the better for when he tries again next time.

It seems Settles talked to his buddies

eeka, I have no doubt but that Mr. Settles, who we are repeatedly reminded used to live on Fort Hill, talked to the neighbors and even went to neighborhood meetings.

I'm sure he spoke with his buddies—up the hill—who were quite sure that having a bar & restaurant—down the hill—would meet their needs just fine. And, properly adjust their property values at the expense of those folk who would be adversely affected seven nights a week until 2 am.

While we're at it, can we lose this talk of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY). It is pejorative, ad hominem, simple name-calling with no associated content. NIMBY has meaning when we are talking about the location of a new prison, a new power plant, a new waste water treatment facility, a new highway.

It is schoolyard name-calling when what is under discussion is whether a bar and restaurant is an appropriate use for a long-vacant, cinder block store front in a residential neighborhood otherwise devoid of commercial uses.

For shame?

By on

First, like you, I don't actually live in the neighborhood, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about here, but:

Fort Hill isn't a bustling square like Davis or a busy street like Mass. Ave. And Settles isn't known for quiet little neighborhood bistros. The Beehive is a destination - people go there from all over. One might argue a Beehive-like bar, open until 2 a.m., would mean a pretty big change in the neighborhood. This isn't a case of people moving next to the South Street Diner and complaining about the noise - it'd be as if a bar moved into a residential area. Horse of a different color completely.

First, proper attribution,

By Iseut on

First, proper attribution, please. Iseut wrote the original post, not Somebody's Daughter.

Mass Ave may not run through our neighborhood but Columbus Ave. and Washington St. are within a 30 second - 5 minute walk of most of the homes in the district. We do not live in the suburbs. We live in the city. We have all of the problems of urban life but one of the only benefits is our close proximity to the amenities in all the other neighborhoods. Most of us would like that to change. Talk to anyone who grew up here (as some of us arrivistes deign to do) and they can tell you stories about all the stores that used to be in the neighborhood which have vanished over the years due to a variety of factors.

Twenty years ago, Davis Square had shops and bars to cater to its working class population. It was not the trendy hot spot it is now. Then rent control was voted out and all the people who couldn't afford Cambridge anymore more moved to affordable Somerville which is increasingly less affordable as a result, though quite trendy. Neighborhoods change.

We don't want to be the South End. We don't want to be Davis Square. We want to be Highland Park: a city neighborhood (which we are) with city amenities (which we don't yet have). Mixed use zoning is the healthiest, most viable and sustainable approach to city living.

Arrgh, my apologies!

By on

Attribution in the original post fixed. Can I be an idiot sometimes? You bet!


By Iseut on

"Not in my back yard - ism" is more than an annoying acronym. It is an annoying sensibility. Though it can be used regarding "a new prison, a new power plant, a new waste water treatment facility, a new highway", I, and others with contempt for censorship, will continue to use it to describe any self-absorbed, narcissistic person, of group of people, who believe that their own individual personal welfare, desires, comfort, and happiness, in all circumstances, are and will be more important than anyone else's.

And it is provincial NIMBYism as its most petty that precluded discussion or negotiation about an enterprise that could have brought much needed jobs and healthy, legitimate, social activity to my neighborhood.

How a vacant building is better than a bar.

I won't deny that you honestly can't see how a vacant building is better than a restaurant.

Let me help you out by:

A) Completing our recollection of the circumstances by adding the words bar and 2 am closing

and then asking you to perform the thought experiment of:

B) Dropping the Kells into a nice quiet, non-commercial, family-friendly neighborhood.

Now, before all you anon (not verified)s get your knickers in a twist, I'm not suggesting Mr. Settles's establishment would have been anything like the Kells.

Ron Newman called me shameful and shortsighted. I'm suggesting he lacks imagination or is disingenuous for asserting that any use is better than no use. In fact, that is exactly what the neighbors have said: a disused, vacant building is better than the use Mr. Settles proposed.

2 am Bar and Restaurant, Ron Newman, not just Restaurant

Because Mr. Settles never got far enough to discuss the particulars. He withdrew his application after he provoked the storm of opposition by not involving the close neighbors in a discussion about his proposal.

As I said, I learned about that morning hearing only in the afternoon of the day it was to have been held. Mr. Settles apparently withdrew his application shortly before the hearing.

The close neighbors never got a chance to discuss the proposal on the merits with Mr. Settles.

Storm Was a Whimper

By on

The "storm" was actually 3 people nearby, not even directly abutting the property. Settles withdrew because that handful of people precluded the rest of the neighborhood from discussing and negotiating until it was too late.

consider this and try again

Ron already lives near some pretty big venues, including one that U2 played recently. I think he knows and understands that the impacts of entertainment areas can be mitigated - he lives it nightly. There is a vast gulf between The Kells and The Burren.

How a Bar is Better Than a Really Bad Analogy

By Iseut on

A very small vocal group nixed the idea. Tyranny of the majority is not to blame here because the majority didn't get to discuss or negotiate. The vocal few had already sent Settles packing.

I love my neighborhood but you really don't walk around the neighborhood much, Jonas, (or attend any community meetings) if "nice quiet, non-commercial, family-friendly neighborhood" is your simplistic representation of it.

Highland Kitchen, The Regal Beagle, The Beehive: these are the types of neighborhood joints we'll have dropped on us. The Kells? In Roxbury? Talk about arrivistes. Did you just move in from Allston?

Where were all the restaurants—30, 40, or 60 years ago?

First off, adamg, is there any way to kill this multithreaded discussion model? It's making this roiling little back-and-forth a little hard to follow. I think I'm going to go back to only "Add a new comment" and nevermore "Reply".

The name of the new business at Eliot Square where Aces used to be is called Juba Market and Café; although, the Café seems a little over stated.

Second, I apologize to Isuet for two things. For following our gracious community editor's lead in believing the author was Somebody's Daughter. I did scour the original post carefully and failed to find Somebody's Daughter anywhere. But, then I also failed to be able to add a comment, so I figured my anti-scripting addons were messing with me. I try to do the decent thing and reply on the blog of the original posting, rather than suck traffic to UniversalHub and away from the blogs adamg consolidates from, but comments there do seem to be disabled for me for whatever reason.

Also, I apologize, Isuet, for the use of the term arriviste. Though not directed at you, it clearly struck a nerve, and I'm sorry: I shouldn't have used it. It makes me livid when folk in community meetings try to add weight to their opinions by saying, in one form or another, "Well, I have lived here for years, and I think...." It's obnoxious and negates the valuable contributions recent arrivals make, whether their arrival was last year, 5, 10, or 40 years ago. My saying arriviste was just another form of this obnoxious behavior. I shouldn't have done it.

Next, Isuet, in this post, you talk about how Columbus Avenue and Washington street are just steps away from Fort Hill. I think you make my point. These locations might be appropriate for Mr. Settles's proposed use. But, you speak of all the stores that used to be in the Fort Hill neighborhood, and then you deftly slip off-topic to Somerville to talk about the changes there. Halcyon Somerville isn't really pertinent.

Please tell us: where were all the restaurants—30, 40, or 60 years ago—that you would like to restore? What were their locations? Corner, Mom-n-Pop stores? Yup. I know where many of those used to be, but I'm having trouble locating the former restaurants that were so thickly located on Fort Hill.

Can I say that what you yearn for was bulldozed out of Roxbury Crossing? It was never on the hill, it was always in Roxbury Crossing, and it was sacrificed for the I-95 alignment.

What was it, then, that the community process caused to replace the commercial hub that was Roxbury Crossing?

The community process gave us institutions by the bushel. We got a mosque, a police headquarters, a community college with its acres of ridiculous parking lots, a drug rehab facility, the swindle that is the new Orange line alignment, a track and field center, real estate windfalls for Northeastern. What institutions am I leaving out? There are so many that it's hard to keep track.

Oh, and we have abundant vacant parcels at Jackson Square and at Whittier Street and Columbus Avenue. And, let's not forget that festering sore at Gurney and Station streets.

Iseut, when presented with facts and rebuttals, you are reduced to calling names those who disagree with you—here's the list:

  • possessed of an annoying sensibility
  • inclined toward censorship,
  • self-absorbed,
  • narcissistic,
  • provincial,
  • petty,
  • and, here is the actual lie, resistant to discussion or negotiation.

For the eleventieth time: Settles pulled out before he even got going. If he and his buddies on the hill seriously thought it was only three opponents (and one of them not even an abutter!), Settles would have put up a fight. But, to propose that only three residents (count 'em!} put to flight a savvy, well-connected business person, is to make a mockery of the actual facts.
Finally Iseut you use the logically weightless proof by assertion in this post. Just because you see it attempted on discussion boards all over teh innertubez doesn't make it conclusive. It's not sufficient just to assert that I am wrong in saying that Fort Hill is a "nice quiet, non-commercial, family-friendly neighborhood." You have to back it up with facts. In what ways is Fort Hill not nice, not quiet, not non-commercial, not family-friendly?
SwirlyGrrl, I'm sure Ron Settles is a very nice man and a very competent, sensitive business person who knows his way around the hospitality industry—and, the local, civic, regulatory industry for that matter. I get that. What I also get is that Mr. Settles wouldn't own nor manage this property forever.

The issue isn't about these aspects of Mr. Settles character, business acumen, and contributions to other neighborhoods. I have no animus toward the man or his businesses at all. I don't know him. The issue is what is an appropriate use for this particular property on this particular block in this particular neighborhood, not how fabulous the Beehive, the Highland Kitchen, and The Regal Beagle are. Are Dudley Square and Brigham Circle really so far that you can't imagine walking there for music and a pint in a snug, comfortable venue?

To the both of you: Regarding my tightly construed response to Ron Newman, untwist your knickers and stop it. You're smarter than that. Re-read the post for comprehension. Ron Newman, not trying nearly hard enough, said he couldn't imagine something—I gave him a thought experiment and showed him how. In no way does the analogy bear on Mr. Settles's proposal.

Settles pulled out before he even got going

By Iseut on

I agree to disagree about why Settles pulled out. And on many other points I'm not interested in addressing.

You are right, though, Mr Prang. It is (mostly) a nice, quiet neighborhood. Sometimes not nice, as well, and often too quiet. I'd like a little friendly foot traffic to accompany me on my solo midnight walks home from the T.

Point taken: my effort was to attack the concepts, not the people. No offense intended. Thank you for this very stimulating disagreement!


is there any way to kill this multithreaded discussion model? It's making this roiling little back-and-forth a little hard to follow. I think I'm going to go back to only "Add a new comment" and nevermore "Reply".

You can view it that way by changing the Comment viewing options dropdown to Flat list - Expanded. Either format can be confusing, unfortunately. I guess I tend to hit Reply more than Add because it's right there, no need to scroll top. Quoting a snippet of the relevant text helps in either case.

Taking the Fort Hill contretemps over to

Dear Iseut, It is certainly good for us to play the ball and not the man—or the woman—as the neighbors hash out the pros and cons of proposed changes to the status quo on the Fort Hill section of Centre Street.

I'm going to rack the focus out and consider on these aspects of the Settles proposal.

  • The present character of the Centre Street neighborhood
  • The various Settles proposals, to date
  • The need for a concrete, non-shifting proposal from Mr. Settles, and that
  • The concerns of the neighbors on Centre Street are reasonable and, in solidarity, should be your concerns, too.

(I'm sure it will be a relief for adamg to have these thousand-word comments corralled off his board.)

As for your comments above, I'll say briefly:

  • Just as the customers will come predominantly from off the Hill, so too, the jobs at any bar/restaurant mostly will go to folk who live off the Hill.
  • The money will not come from the Hill nor will it stay on the Hill, either. Mr. Settles does not live on Fort Hill.
  • It is fantasy to imagine the Urban Utopia of a safe Pedestrian Paradise growing up around 85 Centre Street. The population density on the Hill isn't great enough. The increased traffic drawn to 85 Centre Street would all come by automobile, not by foot.
  • It is a practical certainty that your personal safety will diminish as a result of the off-Hill customers drawn to Centre Street during the midnight hour. Muggers are drawn to where the partyers are, because that where the mugging business is best.