Hey, there! Log in / Register
Correction to a post about a liquor license
By adamg on Sun, 06/28/2015 - 1:30pm
Sometimes, when somebody says "One and one is ..." you need to let them finish to make sure they mean to say "one and one is two" rather than "one and one is three." The other day, I wrote about Councilor Ayanna Pressley's opposition to a request for a liquor license for a restaurant in Adams Corner in Dorchester. One of her aides told the board it was because of issues related to the law that gave the city new licenses for certain neighborhoods. I extrapolated from that she was opposed to the fact that the proposed owners already have liquor licenses when the law was aimed at restaurant operators just starting out. Nope. She was actually opposed because Dorchester has already gotten several of the new licenses, while Mattapan and Roxbury have largely not benefited from the law - had nothing to to with who the proposed owners are. I've corrected the original post.
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
Could it be
That Roxbury and mattapan have not benefitted from the law because no one applied for those licenses?
No businesses applied in Mattapan
Dont know about roxbury. Dorchester also has a much larger population and area than both of those areas so not sure why the objection. Hope adams corner gets the restaurant.
I will too worry about
I will too worry about Roxbury and Mattapan. Those neighborhoods aren't represented in City Hall by the Mayor himself. So don't be greedy, Dorchester. A business opening an Irish pub in that part of Dorchester isn't taking much of a risk. Put somebody to work getting these start-ups up and running!
You do really nice work Adam.
You do really nice work Adam. You must be *swimming* in karma.
Glad to hear this. I'd
Glad to hear this. I'd forgotten that a business owner with several liquor licenses could get another from this pool of licenses. Makes sense. However, I agree with Councilor Pressley. Experienced restaurateurs with a healthy line of credit or working capital should only be allowed to use these discounted start-up tools where they are needed to spur economic development and distributed between those neighborhoods evenly. BTW, in the Globe report of the hearing on this matter, the Chair was called out as being rude to Councilor Pressley's representative. That's unacceptable on its face, but my impression is that she was letting politics sway her. Hope not.
Politics
That's all it is. My people don't want those, so let's not give them to anybody else. Maybe they should do something about the fact that no one is interested in opening a restaurant in those neighborhoods even when offered a free liquor license instead of playing politics and keeping the licenses from those who actually need them.
Start up tools?
I realize that a liquor license is something needed to start up a restaurant but my recollection from the creation of this new class of them is that they are a response to so many neighborhood ones being taken to be used in a new place in a more "prime" location away from the more residential neighborhoods. The lower cost may be more related to their value being locked within a defined geographic area and that (if I recall correctly) they cannot be transferred directly in a sale but go back to the city if the owner surrenders or loses the license. Whether they go to someone with a track record of restaurant ownership or someone who is trying to open their first one should not necessarily be part of the calculation.