Hey, there! Log in / Register
Is Beacon Hill too liquored up?
By adamg on Wed, 01/07/2015 - 11:48am
An upscale wine store that wants to move into a Cambridge Street mall uncorked opposition from neighboring liquor stores and some residents at a Boston Licensing Board hearing today.
VinodiVino, which already has stores in Brookline, Newton and Needham, wants a license to open in Charles River Plaza, within feet of the existing Simmons Liquor and Jobi Liquors.
VinodiVino attorney Dennis Quilty said the area needs an all wine store that can provide the sort of service an area such as Beacon Hill and the West End deserves.
But Alex Maldl of Simmons and Dorothy Ryan of Jobi said there is nothing the new store could provide that they and the six other liquor stores within a half mile of the location could not already provide. "We have everything in the store that people like," Maldl said, adding that on the chance somebody does want something he doesn't have on the shelves, he can order it from the same distributors that VinodVino would use. "We all have wine shops," Ryan said.
Maldl said the new shop would only hurt the existing businesses. "We all have families, OK?" he said.
Dan Curry, a nearby resident, agreed, saying the new wine chain would run counter to prevailing neighborhood sentiment in favor of locally owned small businesses. He said the shop would be out of character with the plaza, which is home to a Whole Foods, because it traditionally serves Mass. General Hospital, not the residential neighborhood on the other side of Cambridge Street.
Ryan gave the board a petition she said was signed by 500 area residents against the proposed license.
District City Councilor Josh Zakim supports the proposed license.
Quilty, however, said the issue of competition should play no role in the board's "public need" determination.
The board votes tomorrow on the license request.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
6 people die a day in this country from alcohol poisoning
yet we can't get a fucking dispensary opened in the state.
Salem
Did you miss the news about Salem?
No, I saw it
and the time from passage to the first shop opening is how long now?
ya ok
I do agree with that.. :)
I keep saying by the time one opens in Boston, it'll be legalized here. So lots of $ wasted trying to regulate something that eventually will be legalized.
You must be the only person in this state
With a need for a dispensary. You can find pot any day of the week without looking too hard.
The whole concept of medical dispensaries is just ridiculous. Either make it legal or don't. Its like casinos in the mid west.
Oh we can't have casinos in town. That would be illegal. But hey, you can put them on a riverboat permanently moored in one spot and build a hotel next to it and nobody will ever know they are on a boat.
Who makes up these rules? 4th graders?
Plenty of drugs are only
Plenty of drugs are only legal from a pharmacy with a prescription, just because you could get oxy on the street doesn't mean CVS shouldn't carry it for those that don't want to break the law, however much you disagree with the law. Some heart medications are made using the same chemicals as cocaine, but I don't think people with heart trouble should just get coke from a drug dealer.
If you want to make it a
If you want to make it a legal drug, it should be put in the normal supply chain of the drug industry. Just look at what happened at the lab in Framingham that batched the epidurals. Lack of oversight was deadly.Now you want to legalize MJ, and let it be sourced from any ham and egger that has a grow light. Its all just a prop to let it become a recreational enjoyment without the heavy sin tax as like with alcohol.Its all bullshit.If its medicine put it in the drug supply chain. If its to get high , make it available and tax the flux out of it.
He said the shop would be out
Is he saying the Whole Foods/Plaza doesn't serve the neighborhood? As a part of the extended neighborhood (NE) with friends in the immediate neighborhood, it 100% does. I mean... where else does he think people are going to buy groceries? Is there a hidden Stop & Shop deep in the belly of the West End?
Or is he saying the wine shop wouldn't serve the residential neighborhood? Either way, what a ridiculous claim. I hope this guy got laughed out of the meeting.
Hr was referring to the plaza
He didn't mention WF - I threw that in. Councilor Murphy's office took no position on the license request, but noted that the owner of DeLuca's also opposed the request.
The owner of DeLuca's should be more concerned
with the number of expired overpriced items on his shelves.
local businesses
"an Curry, a nearby resident, agreed, saying the new wine chain would run counter to prevailing neighborhood sentiment in favor of locally owned small businesses."
You know, like whole foods and starbucks.
prevailing neighborhood sentiment
I don't understand her concern, if the prevailing neighborhood sentiment is for "locally owned small businesses" then why should they worry about this new store? Clearly the locals will shop at the locally owned small business instead.
When people in meetings like this say the neighborhood wants local, small businesses then that should be a clear signal to approve the non-local large business, since it will just ultimately fail.
Plaza
I'm not sure how that place can even be referred to as a "plaza' anymore, since so much of it has essentially been brought forward to the sidewalk. It used to be a plaza when it was wide open, with a movie theater and an actual Stop & Shop, plus a Brighams and a Friendlys, back when such places were common. I kind of miss the old way it was, even though I always thought they could have done much more with it.
FYI
Prior to it being a Whole Foods, it was a Stop & Shop. Many Beacon Hill and North End residents complained when S&S sold the store to WF because now there was no where in the downtown area that was a reasonable place to shop.
I'm aware of that. It's also
I'm aware of that. It's also completely besides the point. WF or S&S, the plaza serves the neighborhood.
yes dear
But you made a comment if there was a S&S hidden somewhere in the West End. I'm just telling you WF *was* a S&S.
Congratulations, you're a
Congratulations, you're a pedantic.
?
Um ok.. Thanks I think.
Why would Cambridge St
need anything more than Jobi Liquors for all your liquor needs?
Chain liquor stores
I thought the law in Massachusetts was that a chain store could only have three places that sold wine and beer, which is why not all Stop & Shops and Star Markets and Trader Joes and Whole Food sell them. Likewise there are only three Kappy's, etc. So if this chain already has places in Brookline, Newton, and Needham are they planning to close one of those?
The law changed, they are
The law changed, they are slightly increasing the number of stores that one company can own to sell liquor in MA. After the liquor lobby tricked enough people into thinking that unlike everything else in the state, the government needs to artificially depress competition so we will pay higher prices for beer, wine, etc. Imagine if the same rules applied to bananas or gas or coffee.
is the business name the same?
This matters. It is three PER business name. This is why there are three Shaw's locations AND three Star Market locations that sell booze. Same company, different divisions/names. (which is probably the reason why the few Stars that were left over from the days of SuperValu/Sainsbury remained Star Markets and never converted to the Shaw's banner because they sold booze.)
Which is also why Stop & Shop only has three.. maybe if they kept the Purity or Edwards or Finast names going, they could have more.
Depends on how they're owned
The reason most StarMarkets held their name (or returned to being StarMarkets) is because people started complaining in droves when their StarMarkets became Shaw's. So, Shaw's avoided the PR and complaints by letting them stay branded as StarMarkets.
I was told it's a Union thing
Someone told me that either Star or Shaws has a union and the other one doesn't and that is why they never merged the two chains under a single brand. Maybe not true, but that's the reason I was told.
The trucks were both Union,
The trucks were both Union, until the British bought Shaws and outsourced. Both warehouse groups were Union , and Shaws monkeyed around with that too. They were good paying local jobs, but Star is annihilated for the most part , and who knows where Shaws , or what's left of it , gets there stuff. Mileage burns fuel which increases the costs of the goodies . They should have left Star Market alone , the summabytches. And they are doing the same thing to National Grid, it's déjà vu all over.
When S & S bought Purity ,
When S & S bought Purity , they kept one license. I think Purity kept two others and sold them, At that time there was a 3 license limit. S & S now has 3 , Hingham, Malden , & Quincy.
5 now
It's up to 5 now. Next year (2016) it goes to 7. In 2020, it'll be 9 for any individual or group.
There are 3 Kappy's just in
There are 3 Kappy's just in Malden, and more in other locations. The chains are finding ways to get around the limited licenses by joint venturing or farming out the management of liquor departments in various locations. A little background story,,
"
Retailers allowed to hold more liquor licenses
BUSINESS MATTERS
By Lisa Eckelbecker TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]
Michael D. Cimini owns two of the most precious assets in Massachusetts: liquor licenses.
He wants more, and a state law that went into effect this year allowing groups or individuals to acquire more package store licenses has him on the hunt.
“In fact, we’ve been out looking for different stores,” said Mr. Cimini, owner of Worcester-based Austin Liquors. “Haven’t found a good fit yet.”
It isn’t easy making sense of Massachusetts liquor laws. Cities and towns control who can sell beer, wine and liquor. The number of licenses they dole out is limited by their population.
Until this year, a person or group generally could own up to three licenses to sell alcohol. That’s why it’s pointless to look for “Two Buck Chuck” wine at Trader Joe’s in Shrewsbury. The specialty grocer sells alcohol only at stores in Framingham, Cambridge and Brookline.
Yet under legislation passed last year, retailers can now hold up to five “off-premises” liquor licenses in Massachusetts. In 2016 the limit jumps to seven, and in 2020 it goes up to nine.
The numbers are the result of a grand compromise in 2011 between food retailers that wanted to sell alcohol and liquor industry groups that preferred the status quo. The last time the sides clashed in 2006, voters defeated a measure that would have cleared the way for cities and towns to issue licenses to supermarkets to sell only wine. Food retailers had been gearing up for another ballot question this year, but withdrew their opposition because of the new law. Liquor industry groups were glad to avoid another expensive fight. "
http://www.telegram.com/article/20120701/NEWS/107019972&Template=printart
Anybody who tries to open a business in Beacon Hill
is a masochist.
Simmons
If Simmons was more interested in picking up the garbage that accumulates around their store I might be a little more sympathetic to their plea, but as is they aren't exactly the best neighbor.
It might make more sense to
It might make more sense to open a store in DTX, especially with all the hyper luxury condos going up. There's not really anything near there besides bars.
Causeway St
The buildings going on on Causeway and Nashua St will bring in lots of buyers of wine at Charles River Plaza. Of course the new building may also have their own high end wine stores.
I wouldn't be surprised if
I wouldn't be surprised if Roche Bros to be doesn't have a license. They just outsourced the Bridgewater beer and wine dept. There used to be a package store on Essex street.
protectionism
If there's one thing I've noticed about Boston it's that we have more laws protecting our small businesses from competition than in any other big city on the east coast. If we want to bring down the cost of living, we need to start promoting competition, and that means eliminating certain types of regulation.
Getting rid of the antiquated
Getting rid of the antiquated liquor license laws? Count me in
Letting in Walmart? No thanks.
Yeah screw those poor people
Yeah screw those poor people and the elderly on fixed incomes that would like to be able to afford to buy more stuff from a low cost retailer.
yeah
let's screw all the chinese workers in factories who make pennies on the dollar so stuff can be sold for a buck at WalMart?
Or let's screw all the WalMart workers who qualify for welfare and food stamps because they don't make enough money working there
Or how about let's screw all the local retailers that WalMart pushed out of middle america with their high stakes business practices that pretty much said they would put any other competition out of business.
Sorry. I like cheap things because I am a cheapskate. But I haven't set foot in a WalMart in well over 10 years. WalMart is pure evil, plain and simple.
And one way to start
is to revise our laws so the people objecting to a proposed action have to prove their points beyond a reasonable doubt. This would eliminate the subjective and irrational "against the neighborhood's intent to promote local businesses" type objections.
Yes. It's ridiculous.
Supporting, often crappy, local businesses only benefits the local business itself.
As long as this store meets zoning and other legal or code requirements, the neighbors should have no say in it. This is a private lease transaction between the property owner and the store owner.
How is this any different from your neighbor being able to decide what kind of car you buy, to make sure that your chosen car "fits" with the neighborhood?
Um, yeah, right, Mr. Curry
"Neighborhood sentiment in favor of owned small businesses"....except if you are a locally owned small business (non-chain) who serves authentic Mexican food:
http://beaconhilltimes.com/2012/05/15/future-uncertain-for-villa-mexico-...
Not that bullshit canard again
The neighborhood enthusiastically supported Betty and heavily patronized her business.
What the neighborhood opposed, was a building owner's request to get special exemption from the zoning laws that the rest of us live by, so that he could turn part of his house, on a residential street, into a food business. Betty happened to be the first tenant he wanted to rent to, but the application for exemption, and the neighborhood's objection to it, had nothing to do with Betty or her business.
But don't let the actual facts get in the way of you tribal, "I hate that neighborhood and everyone in it." rant.
Did she ever find a new "home"....
... for her restaurant. Or was "well-wishing" all she got from her erstwhile neighbors?
I think she has a spot in DTX
with a planned 2015 opening.
Beyond, of course, spending money at her business and encouraging others to do so, and beyond well wishing, I know of some behind the scenes calling around to landlords, MGH, others, trying to encourage a little break on the rent or other action to keep this beloved business going.
What, specifically, do you have in mind? What is that you seem to be faulting us for not having done?
I fault you for blocking her
She wanted to move into an UNOCCUPIED location that was LAST OCCUPIED BY A COMMERCIAL TENANT. Yes, I'm shouting, because there was absolutely no reason to prevent her from opening. Tacos do not damage a neighborhood.
Nobody blocked her, Ron.
Nobody blocked her.
A landlord asked to be granted a variance -- an exception to the zoning rules that apply to everyone else -- so that he could convert an unused space in his building; a space zoned residential, in a residential building on a residential block, into a food service space. Bessie, and her business, Villa Mexico, was proposed as his first tenant for this converted space, but the variance would have been forever, not just for this business.
There's a choice to be made in how you want the rule of law applied. You can either say that the same rules and laws apply to everyone, or, on the other hand, you can say that your friends, or people who are popular and likeable, get one set of rules, and everyone else gets another. The neighborhood, through its various elected representatives and neighborhood associations. has emphatically chosen the former, over, and over again. One reason that the BH civic association has reasonable credibility with the city is that it is transparent about its principles, sticks to them uniformly, and doesn't play favorites or politics. It has a decades-long policy of not supporting applicants who want to convert residential space in the interior of the neighborhood into commercial space. Period. Doesn't matter who you are, or who you know, or how much you are liked. Everyone involved wanted to figure out some way to find an exception for Bessie because the neighborhood liked her and valued her business, so this was a brutally difficult choice between friend and principle. At the end of the day, the choice had to be to place principle first, because a world based on fair and equitable application of the law is the world we'd prefer to live in. .
Personally, I feel betrayed by Bessie, who seemed to miss, entirely, the concept of precedent and principle that was in play here, instead focusing on the specifics rather than the abstractions involved. Rather mean-spiritedly, in my opinion, she turned on the people who had been supporting her, accusing us of being snobs who didn't want her or her restaurant in the neighborhood. I don't know what legal or PR advice she obtained, that prompted to her to do that, but I'm saddened by it.
Zoning variances are intended to provide some wiggle room in the law, to allow for those circumstances, not foreseen when the law was created, that genuinely create a hardship. There was no hardship here, and no justification for seeking a variance.
Am I wrong in saying that this space was last used commercially?
If so, allowing another commercial use would be simply preserving the established status quo. Leaving the space empty (when it was never residential in the first place) surely doesn't benefit anyone -- the landlord, the proposed tenant, or the residential neighbors.
That's not how the law works at all.
The space was a nonconforming use (i.e. grandfathered in) because it was a barbershop prior to the current zoning laws. When you let a nonconforming use lapse, which, in this case, had been for at least 15 years, the space reverts to the prevailing zoning.
Obviously the landlord wasn't worried about this vacant space -- because, had he wanted to rent the space out as a residence, he could have done so at any time, for decent money. Instead he chose (or more likely, by simply not paying attention defaulted) to letting it sit vacant.
The neighborhood is full of empty spaces... you walk by, look at them and scratch your head, wondering why someone is sitting on 3 million dollars worth of idle investment that isn't producing any income. Often the story is that the building was left to heirs, and then heirs of heirs, and it's now owned by 27 cousins who don't even know each other, and who are barely aware that the building exists, much less looking into how it is being managed. Or it's owned by someone who bought it in 1956 for $18,000, and hasn't fully wrapped their mind around the fact they're sitting on $3 million worth of house from which they could be realizing some rental income.
So why not give them an incentive to fill those empty spaces?
.... by allowing small commercial uses in them? The north slope of Beacon Hill has always mixed residences with small retail shops; that's part of its charm.
Who needs an additional incentive?
I don't think additional incentives would change the landlords' behavior. Immediately, off the top of my head, I can think of a 4 unit apartment building on the North Slope that sat vacant for about 5 years -- another 6 unit building that sat vacant for about 8 years. if collecting $15,000 per month in rent is not sufficient incentive to fill the empty space, I don't know what else is.
Get off it
The variance would have been forever...just like the last time it was a commercial property and then defaulted back to residential only. That kind of forever?
No hardship...just a woman going out of business in your neighborhood with a last ditch effort to use commercial space that ONLY became residential because it timed out. But yeah, no hardships on anyone at all...well, not anyone that MATTERED.
Hardship, really?
How did the zoning laws impose a hardship on Bessie? She didn't even operate a business in the affected district.
Hmmm...
Remember the time that one particular neighborhood demanded a certain kind of curb stone used that is different from what every other neighborhood was getting? Because they believed that their neighborhood, which they claimed was "popular and likeable [to tourists]" gets to play by a different set of rules?
Ahem...
Yeah, I remember it well.
What is this "different set of rules" that you';re talking about? You and I seem to have drawn diametrically opposite conclusions from the same set of facts.
With regard to the ramps, the neighborhood's position was that the city ought to obey the same laws that the city enforces on all of us: property owners, residents, and business operators in the historic district, and that the stuff that the city wants to build or install in the neighborhood ought to be acceptable to the city's own Architecture Commission..
The substance of the neighborhood's position with regard to the ramps is that the City of Boston ought to obey its own laws -- not that the neighborhood somehow deserved some special exemption.
It's amazing
how different rules can have different interpretations, depending on the desired outcome.
Because, of course, the granite curb thing was really only about keeping in line with the Architecture Commission.
ETA: Because I don't want a lengthy back-and-forth nor do I care enough to try to search for some of the previous discussions on this topic, I clearly remember that one of your justifications for this special curb treatment was the Beacon Hill was a "top tourist destination" in Boston. I remember this, because I then went to Trip Advisor (obv not the final word, of course) and found something like 30 other spots that were ranked higher. So please don't think we all have short memories on this one, just not enough time or care to throw your words back at you twice in one post.
ETA#2: I changed my mind and did a quick search. And realized that beyond the tourist comments I alluded to, perhaps the best response was Kaz's to your repeated thumping of the BHAC as if it were some sort of disinterested arbiter of professional judgement. The fact is you and the other plaintiffs wanted a different set of rules for Beacon Hill than the rest of the city. And my initial comment remains standing.
Quick link to it here:
http://www.universalhub.com/2014/naturally-beacon-hill-group-sues-stop-h...
Another link
Another relevant point in the discussion
Put up or shut up
You need to either find a cite of me claiming that, or withdraw your comment, or have the rest of your arguments dismissed as the words of a baldfaced liar.
I personally don't give a shit about the way the ramps look. What has me backing the neighbors' lawsuit is my strong belief that the same laws ought to apply to everyone, and my belief that governments need to be called out on it whenever they refuse to follow their own laws.
The city twice got its ramp proposal shot down by its own Architecture Commission, and then, rather than simply install ramps that complied with the ADA and the historical district regulations, decided to arrogantly claim that some sort of public safety emergency allowed them to sidestep the regulations.
Speaking of hypocrisy, by the way, the ramps around City Hall are red brick.
One concession
I cannot find a quote where you, personally, made the tourist statements. However, if you look at the article I linked back to, that was one of the very top justifications used by many people at the meeting (and in comments on the article) for the need for a more aesthetically pleasing curb cut. So you got me-- YOU did not say that one thing. Does that mean that I am not a bald-faced liar now?
But you keep using that Architecture Commission argument. The same one that Kaz's comment (linked) addresses as flawed. So this is the exact same argument over and over, no matter what anyone else presents as a flaw in it. Keep on it.
What was the granite curb thing really about?
The granite curb thing was mostly about Walsh scoring points with his base by "putting those snobs on Beacon Hill in their place."
Divisive politics of identity suck. One of the great things about Tom Menino is that he never played that card. I don't think you could find anyone in the city who seriously thinks that Menino especially liked, or especially disliked any particular neighborhood.
Why again do you think it is so unreasonable to ask the city when making streetscape alterations in a historic district, to go through the approval process that the law stipulates; the same approval process to which all of us who own property or operate businesses in the neighborhood, are subject?
100% conjecture
Unless you can prove otherwise. Maybe the city just wanted to not spend a lot of extra money in this one neighborhood? Or is it easier to be an oppressed neighborhood?
I don't want to spend extra money either....
I'd love to not spend extra money, too. It would be nice to be able to buy standard windows at Home Depot rather than custom order the historically appropriate ones the law requires.
But we have an open democratic process that led to a historic district designation with a set of rules that govern what can and can't be done to building facades and other stuff here in this neighborhood, which means that I can't put in the Home Depot windows and the the city can't install the concrete and plastic ramps.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As I said, I personally don't give a shit what the ramps look like, but I'm a psychotic pitbull about government not following its own laws.
Say more.
What exactly is the "different set of rules" you think they wanted? (I say "they" not "we" because I'm not a plaintiff nor an officer of any of the organizations involved.) Are you claiming that the historic district designation or the enabling legislation are invalid?
Simple
I'm claiming that what works in Dorchester for basic infrastructure should also work in Beacon Hill (and Back Bay, and South End, etc). Rather than spend additional money (including money spent defending against a lawsuit) to make an unreasonable accommodation for the aesthetic purposes of a few vocal property owners.
And I apologize if you feel unfairly looped into their argument. You've just done a lot of their work here, so it was an assumption that I retract.
I'm claiming that what works
Some neighborhoods have gas lamps, some have mercury vapor streetlights, some have sodium vapor streetlights, and some have LED lights. Some have concrete sidewalks, some have brick sidewalks. Some have narrow, one-way streets, some have wide, two-way streets. "Once size fits all" is by no means the same thing as "Consistent laws, consistently applied."
The notion that new street infrastructure be consistent with the existing street infrastructure, and that it pass the same approval process that is required of any homeowner, utility, or business operator, hardly seems like "an unreasonable accommodation."
As for "aesthetic purposes," speaking solely for myself, I've never seen the City's proposed ramps nor the ones the neighborhood organizations are backing. As I said elsewhere, I don't care -- the ramps could be purple styrofoam for all I care -- what got me involved as a donor to the legal war chest wasn't aesthetic concerns over the ramps, it was offense at the City's cynical invocation of "public safety emergency" as a way to do an end run around its own regulatory process, and at the Mayor's use of the issue to burnish his populist image rather than to back a genuine win-win solution.
QED
I think you need a drink.
You live in Beacon Hill.
QED Let them build this liquor store.
Just got approved
Much to my delight. And I'm never again patronizing the two whiny-assed local shops who tried to use the regulatory process to suppress competition.
Reading the headline and just for a moment
I thought Bill Weld was Governor again.
Maybe this time they are right
Usually with this type of story the locals are in a tizzy and shouting, "Think of the children!" and the new liquor store in question is not near any other existing liquor outlets. In this case, where there are already plenty (I know, that is a subjective term) of liquor stores very near by, I think telling the new store "No" is reasonable.
Why?
So because there are already liquor stores in the area, a new one shouldn't be allowed to open? What if it were restaurants? Hardware stores? Maybe this new wine store will do a better job servicing the community. Maybe they'll have more competitive pricing or more selection. Maybe the staff will be friendlier. Let them open, if there are then too many places to buy liquor, one will go out of business.
Thank God for the free market
I'm so glad that here in the free world we don't have some central government bureaucracy trying to determine what the market needs or wants.
oh.. wait... I guess I had that wrong, there....
MGH Liquors
So Mass General Hospital (which owns Charles River Plaza) is proposing that its newest tenant needs to be a new liquor store? That is what I mean by "out of character."