Hey, there! Log in / Register

Board approves Sox bid to increase safety at Fenway by expanding booze sales

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.


Ad:


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

Comments

"Because of their wide mouths, "they empty when thrown nearly as fast as a plastic cup," he said. "

You're throwing it wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

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?

up
Voting closed 1

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

The City should curb this by not allowing the Sox to open new beer/booze stands and sell plastic bottles?

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

They're promoting responsible consumption by charging exorbitant prices for alcohol.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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!

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Is anyone else puzzled why the Springfield paper feels the need to report on Boston news?

up
Voting closed 0

They actually have a Boston bureau now. The guy who wrote the licensing story used to be a Globe correspondent.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

Until Opening Day to feel safe? I want to be safe NOW!

up
Voting closed 0

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!

up
Voting closed 0

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.

up
Voting closed 0

More beer stands does not equal more liquor consumption.

up
Voting closed 0

"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!"

up
Voting closed 0

Good to see that people FINALLY started thinking about the children.

up
Voting closed 0