[identity profile] keithn.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] davis_square
In what could end up being great news for Somerville, Governor Patrick has proposed eliminating the liquor license cap for towns and cities across the state. This would eliminate what has (ostensibly) been a major hurdle preventing new restaurants from opening in Somerville.

More details: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/gov_deval_patrick_proposes_to.html

From the article:
"That giant sigh of relief you probably heard was Mayor Joe Curtatone,” joked Gardner Mayor Mark Hawke, referring to the Somerville mayor who was not in attendance.

Curtatone appeared with Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll at a legislative hearing in August to testify in favor of legislation to eliminate the cap, arguing that restaurant owners find it difficult to locate in Somerville because of a lack of available licenses.

I'm not sure what resistance there will be to this, but current restaurant owners will have something to lose, as their liquor licenses (which are transferable) will no longer have any value.

Date: 2014-05-17 11:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dfan.livejournal.com
There seems to be a contingent of people continually concerned about the "growing culture of alcohol" in the Davis Square area (mostly recently during the Beer Works proposal), so I can imagine some resistance there.

Date: 2014-05-18 03:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] francescadavis.livejournal.com
I don't think folks are against restaurants that provide something interesting with a diverse offering of food and beverage (alcohol or otherwise). The Beer Works proposal was an addition to 5 existing restaurants with craft beer menus and generic American bar food. I'd liken it to the over population of burrito restaurants a few years ago and fro-yo now. There is nothing wrong with residents requesting diversity in services offered in the area where they live. I am totally for the elimination on the license cap. This will allow more independent restaurants and bars to jump in to the fray and give us great options. It is essential to creating a vibrant and interesting urban environment for visitors and residents. Beer Works wasn't offering anything new, different or interesting and would have only contributed to late night detritus to be discovered by residents walking their dogs the next morning.

Date: 2014-05-18 05:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] maelithil.livejournal.com
But would have filled a storefront that has been empty for what, five years?

I'm all for diverse restaurants, but you gotta do what you gotta do. The 2am drunks who will grace my sidewalk in about an hour are going to be there and are going to vomit regardless of the mediocrity of the food at a Beerworks.

Date: 2014-05-18 03:27 pm (UTC)
smammy: (Default)
From: [personal profile] smammy
Apparently there's plenty of demand in Davis for craft beer and American bar food. Just like there's enough demand for prescriptions and convenience item in Porter Square to support both a CVS and a Wallgreens. Aren't we supposed to just let the market sort this one out?

Date: 2014-05-19 02:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] achinhibitor.livejournal.com
What people want for the atmosphere of the Square is "something interesting with a diverse offering of food and beverage". What they'll pay for is alcohol, preferably interesting but not too expensive. Eliminating the liquor cap will eliminate the excess profits ("economic rent") harvested by those who now own liquor licenses, unless they can persuade the city to not issue any more. The winners are everyone else in the deal, primarily the customers and the landlords. Losers include people who don't drink much and don't want the people around them drinking more.

Date: 2014-05-19 08:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mindstalk.livejournal.com
Well, the Walgreens is newish, who knows if it'll last.

It's the two CVSes in Harvard that really crack me up. A block away from each other! Not like CVS is Starbucks... I thought.

But yeah, I'd generally go with "the market". Not like a planning commission or "concerned citizens" is going to be better at business planning than a business.

Date: 2014-05-18 10:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] puffy-wuffy.livejournal.com
Is it true that the proposal also would make current licenses no-value (non-transferable), or are you referring to the fact that current owners could be forced out by competition?

A liquor licenses racket with more available licenses will create more competition and (key to the reason why the City is pursuing this) more revenue. Plus, most cities forced under the cap tend to go over their quota. For every extra license they have to appeal to the State due to a law written 100 years ago (except for certain lucky exempt cities), and its extra man-hours on all sides to do this.

As far as I can tell, and I could be wrong, the removal of the cap would put the City of Somerville in charge of liquor licensing. Therefore, if the law goes into effect as is, the City will decide the new limits of the liquor licenses racket.

Date: 2014-05-18 10:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] somerfriend.livejournal.com
The current owners will face more competition, and their licenses are now not worth anything. They paid tons for those licenses under the current unfair system of government artificial restriction. That is not a reason to perpetuate the current system, but I do feel sorry for them. Unwinding any government interference in a marketplace is messy.

Date: 2014-05-18 11:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] puffy-wuffy.livejournal.com
Agreed. I feel that we're taking a potentially positive step if and only if residents and owners get to weigh in on what the new policies should be, but the State has definitely taken its pound of flesh out of current owners and, well, it doesn't seem like there is anything in the works to compensate current owners. It seems like the State is just calling it a sunk cost. The new City-run liquor licensing racket could be even worse than the old one . . . or it could take into account in some concrete way, the efforts of current owners.

Date: 2014-05-18 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] clevernonsense.livejournal.com
presumably, many cities will continue to limit the number of licenses, they just won't have to deal with any state restrictions.

Date: 2014-05-19 12:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] clevernonsense.livejournal.com
not at all, actually. Somerville is an exception--leafy suburbs are almost all well under their state quotas

Date: 2014-05-18 04:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] clevernonsense.livejournal.com
and I don't see why Somerville and other highly developed citiescan't sell liquor licenses for $100k (which I'm sure is the more likely result). Waltham asked the state for additional licenses so they could lease them (rather than sell them outright). I can't remember the secant amount they wanted to lease them for, but it was a relatively hefty sum.

Date: 2014-05-21 05:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tiggrstaar.livejournal.com
I think eliminating the cap really will really have a positive affect for smaller restaurants and more specialized bars as it really reduces the start-up costs. I think this is the best reason to eliminate the cap. I don't think we'll overwhelmed with new bars since there already seems to be plenty/enough but some more interesting and unique places would definitely be welcome.

Profile

davis_square: (Default)
The Davis Square Community

April 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 25th, 2025 07:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios