Hey, there! Log in / Register

Codman Square won't be getting a Popeyes for at least another year

The Dorchester Reporter reports the Boston Licensing Board has denied the chain's request for a food-serving license for its proposed Codman Square outlet "with prejudice" after hearing from residents that the square already has more than enough greasy, fatty food in the form of McDonald's and KFC. The vote means Popeyes will have to wait at least a year before reapplying for a license there.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

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

Comments

Had they approved it, perhaps it would have driven out one of the lower-quality fast food chains?

up
Voting closed 0

The city should let the consumer decide what he/ she wants for dinner... or not.

up
Voting closed 4

glad a few loud a-holes are allowed to make my adult food choice decisions. This is everything thats wrong with Boston, we let a select few determine what "we" deserve. How about I go to Popeyes and these clowns go become the nutritionists they think they are and eat somewhere else. This isn't hard, but we make everything hard.

up
Voting closed 2

Putting this Popeyes here will do nothing but harm our community farther. HELLO some people don’t have a car and have to settled for what’s around them.

As a kid my parents always feed me fast food because it was the closest thing to us and well they didn’t know any better. I was literally Obese.

WE NEED MORE HEALTHY ALTERNATIVES, you want Popeyes? Go to Roxbury you lazy f*cks

up
Voting closed 0

I thought there already was a location in CODMAN SQ? Maybe I am wrong but I thought I was driving by one everyday on Washington St.

up
Voting closed 2

They built it out, but it's never actually opened, because, well, they don't have a food-serving license.

up
Voting closed 2

And I would welcome s Popeyes, KFC in Codman Square is dirty with slow and rude employees..a little competition is good for everyone.

up
Voting closed 5

Is this really their job to decide that an area doesn't need this type of restaurant? If there were 3 laundromats in the area and I wanted to open a new, cleaner, better one, would they have the authority to say no? That's really BS.

I think the vocal minority is simply squeaking louder than the silent majority.

up
Voting closed 2

It may be so 20th century or whatever, but, yes, every single would-be restaurant operator in the city has to first go before the Boston Licensing Board and justify their reasons for opening and then the board holds a vote the next day on whether to approve the request or not.

The requirements for a "common victualer's" license may not be as strict as those for a liquor license (for starters, the manager of a simple food place doesn't even have to live in Massachusetts, if you can imagine), but each one requires a public hearing where, yes, members of the public can show up (at 10 a.m. on a Wednesday) and explain why they support or disapprove of the idea.

up
Voting closed 1

In this case, there's a vocal, effective opponent and some (per the last article I read) less vocal, less passionate supporters. Far from a strong neighborhood opposition like there is to say, a halfway house, etc... The idea that this can be argued and swayed like a court case is absurd.

It's very much the parallel of the neighborhood meetings where the older, whiter, home owning residents tend to dominate the meetings about neighborhood developments simply because they have the time and the interest.

up
Voting closed 2

@Adam it's not that they don't have the right to decide, it is that their decision is wrong

up
Voting closed 2

reasons for opening in the first place? The purpose of licensing should be to verify that the business meets specific standards and requirements for the preparing and serving of food. Whether or not the neighborhood thinks there are already too many restaurants is totally irrelevant to determining the ability of a business to meet those standards and requirements.

up
Voting closed 3

You're welcome.

up
Voting closed 2

I still don't understand how the City can deny a business from opening simply because some neighbors don't want it. How is that even legal?

up
Voting closed 2

This is the result of a few arrogant loud-mouths deciding what THEY think is better for others who they don't trust to make their own decisions. THEY, in their infinite wisdom and high-mindedness, think we're too dumb to know what to eat and I goddamned well resent it. Let me break it down, though. They're not opposed to this chicken joint because they think I might eat there. They think poor black people can't be allowed to think on their own, and they need educated parents to help them every step of the way. It's revolting and insulting.

up
Voting closed 2

Yeah! Plus they showed up and shared their opinion instead of waiting until after the fact to post their opinion on an unrelated local news blog comment board. Curse them!

up
Voting closed 7

How is that even legal?

It's legal because there is a law which states that you need a license to open a restaurant.

You're welcome.

up
Voting closed 0

It's legal because there is a law which states that you need a license to open a restaurant.

Just because you need a license to do something doesn't mean that arbitrary denial of that license is legal.

Imagine if you went to apply for a driver's license and the RMV said, "We think there are already enough drivers in your neighborhood, so, no, you can't have one."

up
Voting closed 1

Just because you need a license to do something doesn't mean that arbitrary denial of that license is legal.

What makes it legal is that the law says that the board gets to vote on whether or not you get your license.

Imagine if you went to apply for a driver's license and the RMV said, "We think there are already enough drivers in your neighborhood, so, no, you can't have one."

If that happened, I would probably think "When did they change the law so that the RMV gets to vote on whether or not you get your license?"

up
Voting closed 1

duplicate msg

up
Voting closed 1

Two things:

  1. Just because the law allows the board to vote on applications does not automatically mean that they are allowed to use the criteria they are using. The enabling legislation does not confer unlimited discretionary authority, so it does not automatically follow that the board’s actions are legal under the enabling legislation. They might well be, but that is not an argument you have brought forth.
  2. even if the board’s actions turn out to be in conformity with the enabling legislation, it is entirely possible that the enabling legislation is itself illegal. Courts throw out laws all the time.
up
Voting closed 2

And if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'...

up
Voting closed 3

"Is it legal for the board to act as it did?" and "Should it be legal for the board to act as it did?" are exactly the sort of questions that we the electorate in a city governed by a democratically elected government ought to be discussing. And all we're getting from you is snark. Please be quiet so that the grownups can have a conversation.

up
Voting closed 7

I'm glad that we live in a western-style market economy, where the success or failure of a business is determined by that business's ability to attract and satisfy customers...

... and not in a Soviet-style centrally planned economy, where some government bureaucracy determines what sort of businesses will be placed where and what goods and services they will provide...

... oh, wait a sec, never mind what I just said.

up
Voting closed 0

So either this is a vacant building indefinitely or it gets bulldozed and turned into condos which these same people will bemoan.

What in the WORLD do they think its going to open there? The Daily Table is greta affordable fresh or prepared healthy foods literally 2 blocks away! Youreiehtergoing to get condos you cant afford or a business the local residents can't afford. At best a local person will open some rinky dink restaurant or trinket store...

I lived near shawmut for a year and I literally cannot imagine what else they think is going to happen there? what's the alternative?

up
Voting closed 6

It will just sit there.. and rot.

Because the city has decided that a brand, newly-built store just sitting there empty is far better than greasy chicken apparently.....

Sometimes I wonder where people's mind's are....

up
Voting closed 3

And I would never eat at McDonald’s or KFC.

up
Voting closed 1

Should consider legalities. Is the space suitable with regard to venting, parking, safety, cleanliness, capacity, excessive smells or noise, things like that.

Government licencing should not try to account for taste, fashion, political leanings of the owners, etc. That stuff is for the market to decide.

up
Voting closed 1

CLEARLY what's best for the neighborhood is letting that storefront sit abandoned for ANOTHER year. I mean the city gets it's tax money anyways right? So who cares?

up
Voting closed 2