Did anyone attend the CRUNCH! neighborhood meeting?

[keithn.livejournal.com]

If anyone here attended this meeting, could you report on it?

I have a feeling that there is coordinated opposition to CRUNCH! given the wording of the Davis Action Group e-mail regarding this meeting, and the fact that Alderman Gewirtz chose to attend this meeting instead of the BiBim meeting.

Given the drama involving what is now "Rock N' Fitness," I was hoping CRUNCH! might be able to serve as a viable alternative, especially since I have little faith that "Rock N' Fitness" will survive more than a year.

From what I gathered, the opposition centered around the fact that the gym will have no parking, there are already "enough" gyms in the area, and the belief that the business isn't viable because membership goals are too high.

Comments

[ron_newman]

I went to the Bibim meeting, not the Crunch meeting. But at the end of the Bibim meeting, I talked to someone who had gone to parts of both meetings. He said the Crunch application was on hold right now, because of uncertainty whether Crunch would be occupying the ground floor or the second floor (above a possible grocery).

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

In the last 24 hours, there have been three postings about community meetings to object to businesses opening in Davis Square. And people wonder why Massachusetts has a reputation as being unfriendly to business!

[ron_newman]

The Bibim meeting was called by Bibim, and its purpose was certainly not to object to anything. All 50 states require some sort of licensing to serve alcohol.

Alderman-at-Large Jack Connolly was at the Bibim meeting. Perhaps the two aldermen agreed in advance to split up their duties this way.

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

All 50 states require some sort of licensing to serve alcohol.

True, but in many states the process for getting the license approves is formulaic, the proprietor presents evidence to the licensing commission that they have fulfilled the legal requirements and the license is issued. (In some places, the license must be issued; the licensing commission cannot refuse unless they determine that the applicant has not satisfied some explicit requirement of the law.) That Bibim went through the effort to present their plans to the public shows that they felt it necessary to forestall public objections to the licensing commission, hence public objections to the licensing commission can stop a liquor license. That, in a nutshell, is "an unfriendly business environment" -- a business has to work to keep the squawkers from blocking them.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I'll note that distribution of liquor licenses isn't about NIMBYism but about blue laws - there are a limited number of licenses that are dolled out at the state level to municipalities, who thus have to perform triage. It's not that people are squawking about Davis Square having another liquor-enabled business, it's that they think other areas in Somerville need them more and there's only so many to go around.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

I wish they would issue more if there is demand for them.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

It's a known problem, pretty much every Mayor in MA hates the current system. Maybe talk to your state rep/senator about it? (https://malegislature.gov/People/Search)

[keithn.livejournal.com]

Someone has to want to open business that serve liquor outside of Davis Square first. When I reached out to get information in October, the city had only given out two liquor licenses outside of Davis in about a year, and one was to upgrade an existing Beer and Wine license. We had 8 city licenses remaining at that time (not sure what it is now). Also, Assembly Square has its own cache of liquor licenses, so anything that wants to open there wouldn't apply for the general city licenses.

[francescadavis.livejournal.com]

Seven licenses left. And while I agree with your frustration about the limited licenses in Somerville in general, it is more concerning to me that BiBim cannot afford the commercial rent without a liquor license. (that was stated in the community meeting frequently) Essentially, the commercial property owners are determining the businesses that can afford to survive in Davis Square and limiting those businesses to chains with solid financials. Mom and pop, independent or entrepreneurial businesses have no hope of securing a lease and aren't even considered by commercial brokers at the direction of the owners, even if they have solid business plans with successful financials. The property owners are in the financial position to keep the storefronts empty until they get the rent they want. And that is what is happening. You keep harping on the liquor licenses and accusing city officials of ridiculous behavior, but why not focus on the real problem? All you have to do is look at the Cutter/Summer property to realize that the rents are too high for any reasonable business. There are a number of successful, local "chains" that would love to be in Davis but intelligently say no to the rents. And I really don't get why you think that Davis, which has a significant amount of the limited number of licenses, deserves more. Especially in a city with multiple underutilized neighborhoods? If you are really upset about it, start working with the state and do something. Apologies for my frustration, but your posts are frequent and accusatory with no solutions or attempt to fix the problems you identify.

[beinneighe.livejournal.com]

+1

[keithn.livejournal.com]

Rents are a result of supply and demand - the market - not evil property owners. Property owners can only charge a rent that businesses are willing and able to pay. Businesses in turn are only willing and able to pay as much as their income from the business at that location will allow (with a few strategic exceptions). As the foot traffic near these businesses increases businesses see an increase in numbers of customers, and therefore make more money and are willing to pay more rent. As the income of the residents of the community increases, residents are willing to pay more money and businesses can charge more money, also increasing the income of the business and the rent they are willing to pay.

Your judgment is clouded by the fact that a property owner is making more money in this process while merely owning the same piece of property, so you think they must be doing something "wrong." But look at it as if it was just a system where leases went to the highest bidder, because it effectively is. If one business feels they will be more successful at a location than another, that business will bid higher. One business is more successful than another because it brings in more customers or provides something they are willing to pay more money for. More successful businesses are the businesses that meet the needs of the community better. This is why we live in a capitalist society. The government does have a role here, but that is to block businesses when the location serves one part of the community at the expense of harming another (example, strip clubs).

Coming back and linking this to the specific topic at hand, I don't believe for a second that BiBim cannot afford rent without a liquor license, reason being that a joint selling $5 hamburgers survived there for many years making a slim profit before deciding that it wasn't worth it anymore. BiBim wants to be in Davis Square because of the foot traffic and demographics of the neighborhood. Why didn't BiBim try to open their restaurant in Teele Square, Ball Square, Magoun Square, North Cambridge, or Porter Square? Because they know they can make more money in Davis Square. And that's why Davis Square's rents are higher. They only want the liquor license to make even more money. "Evil", I know.

Why didn't you tell BiBim at the community meeting to move their proposed restaurant to one of the underutilized neighborhoods that you feel so badly for? You say Davis Square has enough liquor licenses and should share the love with other neighborhoods, but almost nobody is trying to open restaurants in those other neighborhoods. They all want to be in Davis.

The liquor board did just this to Beer Works. They told them that none of the city liquor licenses were for Davis Square and they should apply for a different location. Why aren't they telling this to BiBim? This is what is ridiculous about the city's behavior. If you want smaller businesses, say you want smaller businesses. Why hurt your credibility by lying outright about the licenses being for areas of "economic development?"

The reality is one or two aldermen just want to impose their own vision on Davis Square. Gewirtz seems intent on not allowing anything except a Whole Foods-esque grocery store into the social security building. But this isn't the city's building. If the city wants to dictate exactly what goes on in this building, they should buy it from the current owner and then charge whatever rent they want to whoever they want. Another option would be for the city to pay part of the rent for a grocery store that wants to go in. That's how the housing market works - if you want certain people to pay low rent, they either go into government owned housing or have part of their rent paid for by the government.

As for the liquor licenses - give them out to all of the businesses that deserve them, and then go back to the well for more. This is what happened last time. It might be unpleasant, but if our elected officials aren't willing to go back to the state and fight again for the betterment of Somerville, then they should be replaced with ones who are.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

That said, the fact that business plans get scrutinized for viability by the government -- as did the Pinkberry or other froyo one -- is pretty weird and business-hostile.

[ron_newman]

There's a balance to be struck between local democracy and free enterprise. Perhaps Somerville leans too far in one direction, and you'd like it to lean in the other?

[keithn.livejournal.com]

And others would argue that democracy and free enterprise are strongly linked. If the community doesn't want bibim, they won't eat there, and the owners will close the restaurant and it will be replaced by something else. If the community doesn't want a gym, they won't become members, and it will close up shop and be replaced by something else. Over time, the square will mostly be filled with businesses that are supported by the local community, because those businesses will be the ones that survive.

Many of us who live in the Davis Square area are anti-McDonalds people. That's fine. We had a McDonalds. We didn't eat there. Now it's gone. The city government didn't have to go in and shut them down.

Obviously there are some types of business that the community needs to have a say over. Strip clubs, casinos, sports bars, dance clubs. But a Korean restaurant? A gym?

The city gets to hold bibim hostage because they want a liquor license. Having a licensing process makes sense for liquor licenses. But should bibim really be controversial? Why subject the owners to community meetings?

In the case of Crunch the city gets to hold that plan hostage because the city has some ridiculous law that says your business must have so much parking or else you have to apply for an exception. Do gyms that open in midtown Manhattan need to provide parking? This regulation is completely ridiculous. Davis Square is an urban area that is extremely well served by public transportation and businesses that open here should have to provide NO parking whatsoever. Residential streets are protected with the residential permit ordinance. Making these companies request an exception to the parking rule is just a way to try to force them to do things completely unrelated to parking - such as making sure the gym plan won't interfere with one particular alderman's organic grocery store dreams.

[ron_newman]

If we end up with a gym and a grocery, I'll call the city's process an unqualified success. We'll see.

(I agree with you about parking, and would like to see the city abolish minimum parking requirements in all zones for all developments.)

One problem with the untrammeled free market is that it can produce the distorted form of democracy known as "one dollar, one vote".

[keithn.livejournal.com]

That last line makes it sound like 1. you are making a straw man argument, since nobody is arguing for an "untrammeled free market" (I even listed a bunch of instances where the government clearly should be acting) and 2. you are trying to invoke Citizens United for an emotional appeal when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. A dollar is a dollar, and renting/leasing and buying/selling are done in dollars. Nobody is saying here that wealthier businesses should get preferential treatment from the government. The point is that everyone should get equal treatment, which I'm sure is what you mean anyway.

[ron_newman]

The distinction I'm trying to make is that the business where the most dollars would be spent is not necessarily the same as the business that most local residents would patronize.

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

While I agree that the parking requirements are over the top, comparing Davis Square to midtown Manhattan is kind of ridiculous. There is always street parking available within a few minutes walk from Davis.

[keithn.livejournal.com]

The point is that urban areas clearly do not need to always have parking requirements for businesses. The point is not that finding residential parking in Davis is as difficult as finding it in Manhattan.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

Keith, Ron is incapable of feeling empathy for business owners and what they go through.

[ron_newman]

Really? I'm all in favor of Bibim and the gym and the grocery, and would like to see parking requirements abolished along with the artificial cap on liquor licenses.

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

You're in favor of those things because they benefit you and the community. You are regularly dismissive in posts of the expenses/risks a business owner faces. The term "unqualified success" above is an example. If you had empathy, there would be a qualification.