Hey, there! Log in / Register
Once again, board forced to decide whether vodka is really vodka
By adamg on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 11:46am
Murati Ferrer with seized vodka.
The owner of an Albanian restaurant on Boylston Street says the whiskey, bourbon, rum and vodka bottles seized by police during a July 1 inspection are really cordials it's allowed to sell.
A skeptical Boston Licensing Board decides Thursday what to do about the alcohol seized from Vlora - some of which may contain herbs or other ingredients that might make it liqueurs rather than hard stuff. It will also have to decide whether it buys the restaurant's argument that a DJ is not a DJ if he doesn't have turntables - Vlora is not licensed for DJs - and whether the fact the place had roughly 50 more patrons than allowed by its occupancy permit is merely a technical violation rather than a potential safety hazard.
Vlora, at 545 Boylston St., is only licensed to sell beer, wine and cordials. Restaurant attorneys said the flavoring in the bottles seized by police - and inspected this morning by licensing-board members - made them cordials, not hard liquor.
In June, an East Boston restaurant made a similar argument, and the board agreed. But the boozed boxed up at Vlora, which included Maker's Mark and various bottles of rum, gin and bourbon, might be a different case. Board Chairwoman Nicole Murati Ferrer picked up a bottle of Pinnacle Vodka and said, no, the fact the stuff is vodka "is as clear as the bottle."
"Pinnacle Vodka does have flavored ones; this is not one of them," she said.
Boston Police Sgt. Robert Mulvey also cited the restaurant for having a DJ, in violation of its entertainment license, which does not allow one. Owner Aldo Velaj said the guy didn't have any turntables. Murati-Ferrer said that's a distinction that makes no difference - DJs these days often use laptops instead of turntables.
Mulvey also cited the restaurant, hosting a private party that night, for having 183 people inside when its permit only allows 138. Restaurant lawyers agreed that was a mistake, but said they are also seeking an increase in occupancy for the restaurant, which has roughly 5,000 square feet of space.
Mulvey also said many of the patrons that night were just standing around, holding what appeared to be mixed drinks, rather than sitting at tables with food, as required by the restaurant's license. He said tables had apparently been shoved out of the way in the back to make room for more people.
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
Liquor! Music! Thank goodness
Liquor! Music! Thank goodness the Boston Licensing Board was able to step in to avert the possibility that someone might have been enjoying themselves at this restaurant.
Heaven Forfend
That science have anything to do with it! Stick to the actual public health issues, puhhhleeze!
Instead of dealing with little categories of names for stuff (like the 67,000 different classes of PANTS and SHOES my MIL has ...), why not just look at the alcohol content of the finished product - and the labeling - and finish it all there.
Make them have these cordials premixed and labeled off-site if necessary to insure that what people order is what they get - but the rest of this is just silly stupid bullcarp if the resulting drink has no more booze than wine or beer in it.
Careful with that stuff
I wouldn't drink anything out of a Marker's Mark bottle...it's probably bootleg methanol.
However, Maker's Mark would be a different question entirely. ;)
Boston: drunk by the books
There was a Mrs. Murati-Ferrer
Who’s name fills the barkeeps with terror
SoCo you’d think
Was just flavored drink
But they were serving hard liquor in error
Vlora again?
The folks at Vlora have kept their noses clean for some time, but they got in pretty serious trouble a few years back:
http://www.universalhub.com/node/12215
You beat me to it
They are constantly trying to push the envelope on entertainment, occupancy, alcohol licensing etc. Personally I don't have a problem with all that but here's another rendition of that incident which I do have a problem with if this isn't in the Uhub citation:
http://www.masscops.com/archive/index.php/t-44787....
I think these boys and girls are in big trouble. We'll see what the board has to say.
Entertainment license, but DJ not allowed?
Is there any rationale for a rule that allows live bands or stage shows, but not a DJ?
I don't know the specifics
...but you need an entertainment license to even have the radio playing softly over speakers, or to have a TV on the wall, I believe.
Anything so the city can
Anything so the city can charge you for a license.. they don't call us taxachussetts for nothing!
Massachusetts tax burden
Actually, according to the tax foundation (link), Massachusetts has an average, middle-of-the-road tax burden. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant...
Not even close..
Its not the amount of tax its the way they nickle and dime you.
This is how I see it (and quote an episode of Designing Women at the same time):
"Ever buy a chicken Guadalajara? At first the price seems fair. But then there's a charge to kill the chicken. And then another to cut the chickens head off, and then a charge to pluck the chicken... I looked at Ted and said "Its just too expensive to live here"
This is how it is in MA. The initial price doesnt seem that bad, its all the extras that will get you.
Sound more like NH to me
Unless you're renting.
Let's not pretend this is a Red/Blue state, Dem/GOP issue. Arcane, stupid laws put to "catch" businesses are meant to control them for someones benefit.
Red states / towns have similar issues where zoning gives way to micromanagement, to the same effects.
"all the extras...
just hold the tax."
I understand that states like Alabama, Mississippi and Texas are offering a frills-free government experience for those who don't want to pay taxes. Check it out and let us know.
And I do think from here on out the inspiration for our tax policy should be torn from the pages of "Designing Women" scripts. Maybe our environmental policy can come from "F-Troop" and health care policy from "Sanford and Son."
Whatever
I take anon posts with a grain of salt (and a mile of BS)
I think you guys missed the whole point here. I'm just saying that this is how this state works. Yeah the initial charge is OK, its the extras that will get you.
Same here. So I can server alcohol, but in order to have a TV or a radio playing I need an entertainment license? That's just absurd.
That old liberal piece o' crap again
yes - on a percentage of income basis Mass is about average. But we have one of the highest per capita incomes in the country so on a dollar basis our taxes are some of the highest in the land.
When I walk into a store and say how much is that loaf of bread, nobody says - well how much do you make? Only government prices their services based on that and then calls it reasonable when they charge you 20% more than you'd pay in other parts of the country. Our schools are good (which has nothing to do with cost-some of our best schools have the lowest budgets). Other than that I don't see much coming out of Beacon Hill that's much better or worse than most of the rest of the country where they pay about the average amount of state and local taxes in dollars, not percentage of income.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your misguided anon post.
Nah, middle
Actually, we're pretty much in the middle. Many stats track tax burden by income level, like here. Alleged low tax states with little or no income tax tend to make it up in fees and property taxes. MA and Boston specifically are never at the top and generally down the list.
Check around for your own favorites, but know that the cliché of Taxachsetts is winger jive.
More analysis backing this up
We're just below middle, even.
http://www.massbudget.org/documentsearch/findDocum...
We've had the biggest reduction in personal taxes out of all 50 states over the past 40 years, going from 3rd highest to about 30th highest.
More bad liberal analysis
Did you read the critique? Measure it in dollars - not percents - like here - total state and local taxes per capita IN DOLLARS by state as of 2009:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html
I think we are about 5th on this list - CT, NY, NJ and DC ahead of us and Maryland slightly behind. I have a lot of relatives in NY and NJ - apparently many of their wealthier residents are fleeing in droves as they keep jacking up taxes to pay for things they can't afford.
Here's a stat you can't argue - with roughly 6 million people and a state budget of over $30 billion it costs about $5000 per capita to run just the state govt. Using Boston as one example we spend another $4000 per person - meaning it costs the average household of 3 in boston $27,000 for government - or about 50% of average household income. Some of this is transfer taxes from the state for local aid (and some goes in reverse) but that's a fairly nominal number.
We can't afford to continue like this. When is this country going to realize that? When we have no choice but to default on our loans?
You couldn't be bothered to read your own cite?
We're 11th on that list.
And I'd rather pay 10% on 53K than 6.3% on 47K (that's Alaska - #50 on the list). Do the math.
And you use the per captia tax burden at the beginning of your 3rd paragraph 'analysis' but then confuse per household and per capita income. By that table's reckoning, a household of 3 in MA has an average income of $171K, not $57K.
This seemed odd, so I looked at the methodology working paper cited on that page. Frankly, it's a mess. For example, the numbers in that paper do not match those on the page you ref'ed. Not sure why. I quickly checked several other notably "blue" states (NJ, NY etc) and noticed that they all seemed to move up the list between working paper and top page. Hmmmm.
Btw, MA is 23rd on the list, according to the working paper.
tax foundation working paper methodology
nothing nefarious in the different tax burden rankings, it looks like the working paper is using 2008 data and the list with MA as #11 in tax burden is using 2009 data
You couldn't bother to read my post?
You are looking at the percentages in the first column. The applicable number are the dollar figures in the second from right column (although I'll admit the methodology makes this a bit complex - I am only citing it as a source of relative ranking in dollars - you and Kaz can find almost any source you want - the rankings won't change much - they are very closely correlated to per capita state income). The point remains - if you can provide decent state services in many states (which are probably at least as inefficient as we are) for say $4000 per person - why are we paying $5300? Do you pay 30% more for your food, or a lawyer or accountant just because you make more money? Not unless you are stupid. What are we getting that almost every other state in the country doesn't get for our extra $1300? Or are we stupid?
I didn't confuse the numbers - the table has a complex methodology and I'm not sure if they are stating per capita income or per capita gross state product - it does seem confusing and again I only use it as a neutral source of relative ranking. The fact remains - in the simplest format we spend $5000 per person on state expenditures and $4000 on local - at least in Boston - netting out state aid it's probably a bit less. That comes to a bit shy of $27,000 per household in tax burden. That's on a per capita GDP of about $65k or translating to our household of 3 - $195,000 (so if that's the number they are quoting - they are actually fairly close and the difference is probably mainly due to timing of the data and the fact that actual household size in mass is a bit less than 3)
Cost of living?
Cost of living in an area varies with per capita income, making it necessary to pay public employees more so they can afford said cost of living, and so forth?
No reason to look at real dollars
The only reason to look at real dollars would be to make you sound correct. The reality is that tax is a percentage problem.
Imagine a state called Steviland. All of the residents there pay $1 BILLION dollars in taxes! OMG, alert the presses!! They pay the MOST TAXES in your analysis! Oh, wait, they each also make $50 TRILLION dollars each year! Why would I compare their $1 billion in taxes with any other state that might be paying on the order of thousands...especially when they're paying so very very little of their $50 trillion dollar salaries?
It's the relative taxation that matters. How much of your pay are you losing to the state relative to the amount that you're keeping.
Also, quoting The Tax Foundation (chaired by Wayne Gable, a Koch crony) is about as useful as asking Rush Limbaugh how to file for food stamps.
Kaz, your Steviland economics argument does not hold up....
does not hold up beyond a certain point, granted much is relative and the taxes would have to be high to pay those $50 trillion dollar teacher and firefighter salaries but for all the goods/services the state obtains from outside Steviland they would be paying real world Kazland costs. So the actual dollar totals DO provide information as to how efficiently out state and local govts are running.
right
And population and density also matters.
Whats your freaking point?
Fake liberal dollars for Kaz
Why would I compare their $1 billion in taxes with any other state that might be paying on the order of thousands...especially when they're paying so very very little of their $50 trillion dollar salaries?
Liberal Translation - in Rhode Island where people make say $75,000 on average I can hire a cop for $75,000. But in Mass where people make a trillion dollars, we should pay the cops a trillion dollars
Conservative translation - If I make a trillion dollars in Mass and someone in mass wants me to pay him a trillion dollars to be a cop - I go to rhode island and hire someone for $75,000.
That's the problem with government - they think they're entitled to my money whether they need it or not (Boston being a poster child for that one)
Exactly
So, that's why all our cops are from Mississippi (average MS cop salary: $31,000)! It's because we were offering them too much here (average MA cop salary: $45000). Whew...and I just thought all of them having a southern accent was a Dukes of Hazzard thing!
WHAAATTT? You mean to tell me that we don't hire all of our cops from Mississippi to save money?? But Stevil said that's why I have to compare RAW dollar amounts!
Income tax is so misguided
Don't people know that income is a reflection of how much you contribute to society?
We should totally switch to an asset tax instead.
what?
So, I fully admit to never having heard of this kind of tax before but it sounds like what you're saying is that if I earn salary X, and save and save and save for years and accumulate a lot of money (which I earned from my salary and accumulated by not spending it), I should be taxed more than someone who earns the same salary X and spends it all and doesn't accumulate any money because they didn't save anything?
Yeah, that's what he said
The person who lives in a tent, eats bark and grubs, and never spends a nickel of his paycheck is doing a lot less for the economy than the person who spends his entire check by the end of the month.
Not to mention that a tax on wealth (as opposed to a tax on income) places the burden of, say, national defense on those who have the most at stake.
What MattyC said
I'm also no expert in Boston entertainment licenses (I prefer my licenses straight up, and so don't go to that other licensing board's hearings), but "entertainment" can be something as simple as a radio (or one of those magic Muzak machines). DJs and dancing require separate licenses (and yes, restaurants have gotten cited for letting people dance to music if they don't have a license for a dance floor). Even TVs over a certain size (42 inches, maybe?) require a permit.
I've heard of restaurants
I've heard of restaurants that had licenses for live music that didn't allow dancing. Whee!
Is it me...?
or is Nicole Murati-Ferrer a total hottie?
No, not just you
No, it's not you. But I, too, wonder why her name plate is obscured
Because this is a family Web site
Or could be an artifact of the processing I did on the photo (which I took from the back of the room in relatively low light with major zoom, high ISO and no flash).
Yeah, just a processing artifact of some kind
Here's her name plate from the same exact photo, completely unprocessed at all, save for cropping:
Any relation to Barbara Ferrer
of the Boston Public Health Commission?
...or....
...Jose Ferrer?
https://lh4.googleusercontent
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-UpfNf9Wcg8o/TCz...
Processing artifact?
Next thing, you'll disappoint us with the news that her striking "I'm the smarter, more sophisticated cousin of the girl next door" good looks are also a result of some processing artifact?
Well, I'm not sure...
....how good lookin are you?
veiled reference
To this perhaps:
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/tom-brady-snl-se...
i wonder why her name plate
i wonder why her name plate is blurred out of this photo.....