No more reggae Thursdays at Theater District club; owner says crowds just too unruly at closing

A February fight that ended with one woman grabbing another in a chokehold and repeatedly punching her at closing time outside CandiBar on Warrenton Street is one of three incidents that prompted owner Charles Delpidio to end a weekly reggae night after just ten weeks.

"I don't need that money," not when customers' "lack of respect" was putting his license at jeopardy, Delpidio told the Boston Licensing Board this morning.

Delpidio said the weekly Thursday-night sessions always went fine until closing, when customers would congregate outside, refuse to leave and cause trouble. Delpidio was before the board a couple of weeks ago for another Thursday-night incident and faces a third hearing on another.

On Feb. 23, police said, several woman got into a fight at closing time, "screaming and hitting each other." The two who wound up in a clinch had an on-going feud, police said.

Delpidio said his staff tries to get people to move along as the night ends at 2 a.m., but some people just refuse to move. He said his problem is compounded by the fact he's across the street from a garage used by patrons of other clubs, who have similar issues not wanting the night to end.

Neighborhoods: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Nothing new

By on

Boston, especially downtown Boston has never been known for long lasting reggae or hip hop clubs. All of them come and then get shut down within a couple of months at the most.

up
12

I know, it was in Cambridge

By on

But the Western Front was pretty much all reggae for over 40 years. Not sure if the music has changed or if the people that like it have, but they used to be a pretty mellow bunch.

up
16

Break out the dictionary

Delpidio said his staff tries to get people to move along as the night ends at 2 a.m., but some people just refuse to move.

Lot of people who make rules in this town (and the people who elect the people who appoint them) really need to learn the meanings of "force", "incentives", and "voluntary."

The night ends at 2 A.M. because somebody will come and use force to make the bar do it. It is not voluntary. This force creates a scenario where people are still drunk but not yet tired.

So, now we have a hearing that isn't voluntary, because the force used by the city against the bar owner to set a closing time that isn't voluntary led to this fighting scenario, where the participants fought voluntarily and didn't move when the club staff told them to, because they are legally barred from using the same force that police officers can use with little to no consequences.

In fact, if the bar sought police force voluntarily, the police would scold them, even though they've already been paid through involuntary seizure of funds. I've seen it.

If the bar didn't have to close at 2, the natural human fatigue felt by the customers would be incentive to leave voluntarily instead of being forced out at a 2 AM closing time.

Of course, this is common sense to somebody of my superior intellect. Apparently, it is not to the Boston Licensing Board, and to this city's (EDIT: and state's) lawmakers. But hey, when you make six figures and/or give yourself raises and/or work three days a week, what's your incentive to try at all?

up
22

I'll agree with

the following:

1) Lawmakers and board members in this city are often in it for the wrong reasons - they're money and power hungry.

2) The above people are also often lazy blowhards.

3) Bar hours could stand to be extended in Boston, a "world class city."™

However, I don't think any of the above reasons are legitimate grounds for people to start beating hell out of each other on the sidewalk at 2:30 AM. It might be grounds for people to be loitering or lingering around a bit, but people who end up in fights at bars almost assuredly didn't go into the bar that night with a sunny attitude.

For instance, while I may complain often about lawmakers and appointed officials, and while I enjoy drinking alcohol, and while I think bar hours should be allowed to go on later than 2 AM in Boston, I have never picked a fight in (or outside of) a bar.

up
22

So hold the people who geT in the fight responsible

By on

for their actions. But don't drag the business into it, especially if the fight happens on a public street. THAT is the problem with the Licensing Board - too often they look for flimsy excuses to punish businesses instead of having the police hold individuals accountable for their actions - the whole fake ID idiocy (bar gets handed suspension, which person using fake ID gets charges suspended) nonsense being a perfect example.

up
16

Yes, I agree

for the most part. The people using fake IDs and picking fights should bear the brunt of the punishment. There are instances where bars and clubs are clearly negligent (I've been witness to that before), but overall the jackasses themselves are to blame.

up
10

Will hates the licensing board like nobody's business

By on

And sometimes seems to forget his ire should perhaps be focused on the state legislature, which has enacted the laws the board and the police have to enforce. It's not the city that requires bars to close no later than 2 a.m.

And it's not like it's some surprise sprung on the people who lay out significant sums to get a liquor license and outfit a dance club - they knew what they were getting into (if you become a manager of a licensed establishment in Boston, you have to swear you're familiar with "the rules and regulations of this board, the ABCC and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the sales and service of alcohol").

up
12

Fair

Edited. I love how 350 other cities and towns elect people to tell wonderful Boston what it can and can't do. That's the tail wagging the dog for sure.

I will love Boston forever. Massachusetts can screw.

up
12