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.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-03-11 09:48 pm (UTC)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.