Cambridge loses lawsuit for enforcing law that didn't exist against local restaurant

I moved to Cambridge around the same time that NMF became the chair of its licensing commission, but I don't have much to do with the hospitality/restaurant world, and only hear about scandals like this from neighbors and articles like this one. From other reports by Marc Levy on Cambridge Day, it seems like was hired to tackle a corrupt system that had preyed on licensees for decades:

Several councillors, including Toomey, said they wanted to know “how we got into this situation,” though it was clear what in a way both caused and ended it: Current commission chairwoman Nicole Murati Ferrer, who has been aggressively reforming local rules and regulations since her arrival last year to bring them back into line with state law. By ensuring Cambridge was no longer acting illegally, including with a revamp of liquor licensing rules that took effect a little less than a year ago, she burst a sort of bubble of artificial value that may date back to 1981.
Vice mayor Marc McGovern said that, despite the pain license holders were feeling, Murati Ferrer shouldn’t be blamed. “She could take a lot of of the heat for this situation,” McGovern said, “but she’s trying to fix something. I want to thank her for getting us on the right track.”

That doesn't excuse subsequent retaliatory behavior, favoritism, or stonewalling, but suggests the history is complicated.

Frankly I'm surprised there ISN"T a law against open flames in areas of public assembly. 80 years ago the Cocoanut Grove fire spawned an awful lot of new regulations, and yet we seemed to have learned nothing judging by the Station nightclub fire, which brought about another round of regs. How many times do we have to learn these lessons? (I know, I'm no fun). That said, shame on the inspectors for not knowing the law inside and out, and if they did know and were just being bullies or getting some sort of revenge they definitely should pay the price.

Is that Ferrer is herself a lawyer.

I was told once by a law student that to get a lawyer disbarred, there has to be tangible disservice to a client. I would think that putting the City of Cambridge on the hook for what were avoidable legal expenses just because of straight ignorance of the law suits that.

because the courts initially ruled wrongly and Upper West had the wherewithal to continue to challenge. But there's nothing unique to Cambridge about this kind of corruption and the small-minded, tin pot dictators who sit on licensing boards.

Now why no elected official in Cambridge said anything about this in the ensuing time, I can't tell you. I suspect its because of the Cambridge charter where the manager runs the town and the mayor is basically a figurehead.

Sorry, this is the second time this morning I’ve seen this and can’t contain myself any longer.