As if we needed another reason to dismantle the Boston Licensing Board

A Few Phone Calls and Faxes.... (6.00 / 1)

is not running a business out of the office. See here David. (get it? "see here" was link.)

It is abuse, but the facts in the story show abuses far short of what "running a business" out of city hall is.

BTW David, you want to get rid of the Board because of why? It's members are politcally connected?

Huh?

David, great idea. Kindly show us the commission or board or authority that the Boston Licensing Commission can model itself after? One where none of the members are politcal.

Ernie Boch, III is not related to Ernie Boch, Jr. however he does hope to be in his will.

Justice for Tookie

---

by: EB3 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:55:18 AM CST

Ernie, come on. (0.00 / 0)

You can't possibly think that having the Gov appoint the members of the BLB is a good idea.  Nor can you possibly think that having to go to the State House every time the city needs more licenses is a good idea.

I repeat: the whole thing stinks.

---

by: David @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:58:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Listen David.. (5.33 / 3)

You unwashed irish drunken bastard have to understand that you can't  make decisions good decisions when it comes to booze.

We know what is best for you. You just worry about drinkin' and we will worry about where and when you can drink.

Ernie Boch, III is not related to Ernie Boch, Jr. however he does hope to be in his will.

Justice for Tookie

---

by: EB3 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:12:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who'd 'a thunk it? Ernie's a Brahmin! (6.00 / 5)

Ernest Boch Sr. (1870-1942) ;-)

---

by: David @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:22:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Now you Know .... (0.00 / 0)

where I get my good looks.

Ernie Boch, III is not related to Ernie Boch, Jr. however he does hope to be in his will.

Justice for Tookie

---

by: EB3 @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:23:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Beverage of choice: gin and tonic with lime (0.00 / 0)

Taken every evening at the Somerset Club.

My God. It is all becoming clear now.

And your posting location. Wait, let me guess: a Beacon Hill townhouse with a view of the Boston Athenaeum. Cherished no doubt by the family for generations. The whole place still with the original 1890s furniture.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:29:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who does Boch talk to? (0.00 / 0)

And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots
And the Cabots talk only to God.  

Bob Henry/Cape

---

by: bobhenry @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 20:01:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree there is a problem - well several - but I am not sure what the solution is, except... (0.00 / 0)

How about Boston ELECTS its Liquor Licensing Board AND it is subject to Open Meetings Laws AND all licenses are awarded by lottery?

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 18:02:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How about a comission run by the City? (0.00 / 0)

Why should Boston be the only city in the state that does not control its own liquor licensing? It is long past time to give control back to Boston.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:21:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do they need a board inthe first Place? (0.00 / 0)

Most cities have their council vote up or down on a
license. Then they have a licensing agent who oversees
the licensees. Usually falling under the executive who
would be the Mayor. Similiar to a building commissioner
with assistants who do the footwork. Paid employees. But
then again we are talking Boston here. Many of these
types of positions were set up as part of the good old
boy rewards program. Not a novelty in Massachusetts politics.
Anyone with their hand out usually gets a hand up to.
So hey what's the big problem here. It has become
a historical artifact which serves as a source of
great debate. You want that to end. Come on!  

Bob Henry/Cape

---

by: bobhenry @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 19:35:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sheer numbers (0.00 / 0)

No other city or town in MA has 650 all-purpose liquor licenses, not to mention beer/wine, one day special permits, liquor store licenses, etc. etc.

---

by: stomv @ Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:03:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You got bigger fish to fry than the Boston Licensing Board (0.86 / 7)

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

"Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"Alright, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

This is scary.

From the Politico 23  January

---

by: MCRD @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:39:26 AM CST

Off topic again (6.00 / 1)

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:54:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm off topic because when anything of national import (3.00 / 1)

ie Obama refusing to answer questions--like that is something new.

Obama releasing terrorists and closing terrorist prisons

Caroline Kennedy, Charlie Rangel, and Timothy Geithner have nanny and TAX PROBLEMS, ie they don't pay their godamn taxes, while it gets stuck up my kiester  and BMG scrupulously avoids the issue. Why talk about democratic criminals in Washington when you can casually allude to troubling democratic criminals in city hall----much more low key and less anxiety provoking.  

---

by: MCRD @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:21:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nothing (3.00 / 2)

prevents you from posting a separate diary if you think that something is worthy of mention. But introducing every topic everywhere is a mess.

You do it all the time.

No one else seems to require this.

I will continue to mark your off-topic comments for deletion.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:24:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I have---it's deleted! (0.00 / 0)

BTW:  All in not going well on the Global Warming frontier.

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...

---

by: MCRD @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:26:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Off-topic here, not everywhere (0.00 / 0)

Did you write a diary on this? On any of this? No. Your last diary was in June, rambling about Obama's birth certificate. Write something. But not here. It's off-topic in a post about the BLB.

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman

---

by: dcsohl @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:29:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What terrorists are being released? (6.00 / 1)

And how exactly do we know that all of the people in Guantanamo are even terrorists? Because George Bush told us so? Give me a break. Even the military's own prosecutors don't believe that.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 16:25:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you dillusional? (0.00 / 0)

It sounds to me from your comment, that you
are truly dissillusioned with the political
process. That would indicate to me that you
must be republican, feeling repudiated, lost
because your party has no agenda. Sounds to
me as if relocation may be an option for you.
Ever thought about Cuba, no political parties,
very clear agenda, no political stress or
anxiety, few cars, easy food selection, some
or none. Sounds like paradise!  

Bob Henry/Cape

---

by: bobhenry @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 19:44:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes very scary .... (0.00 / 0)

I'll be hiding in my basement.

Listening to Charlie Baker talk about fiscal responsibility is like getting lectured on abstinence from Paris Hilton - Tim Murray

---

by: johnk @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:15:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Off Topic, not scary, and WHAT does this have to do with the Liquor Board (0.00 / 0)

McRD if you have something like this to say:

1.  Write a post of your own as a diary.

2.  Give some links

3.  Back up your opinion.

Otherwise, your post in my opinion is in a SPAMish category.  Useless and wasting bytes and pixels.

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 18:05:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama said he wasn't there to take questions... (0.00 / 0)

...and he didn't take questions. What the F is so scary about that?

Here's the video of this encounter that has you so terrified. Ooohhh...scary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...


Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 20:28:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

David, I wholeheartedly agree with you (0.00 / 0)

The whole thing does stink. And, I said this before in a comment I left on one of Ernie's posts, the difference between what Diane Wilkerson did (coughing up licenses in exchange for $23,000 in bribes) and what Dan Pokaski did (coughing up licenses in exchange for a $25,000 raise) is at best semantic.

---

by: LiamD @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:40:42 AM CST

why have quantitative limits? (6.00 / 1)

There should be qualitative restrictions in getting a liquor license, fine.  But why cap the number available once you've demonstrated the criteria?  At the very least, why cap beer/wine licenses, which is basically akin to capping the number of restaurants.  The artificial restriction in the number of licenses is what creates this gray market, and as long as it's there, you're going to have problems -- whether they are obvious like Clay Davis, er, Diane Wilkerson... or more amorphous corruption, as with insider commissioners and law firms.  

Let the eagle soar!

---

by: paddynoons @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:58:40 PM CST

I understand the cap (0.00 / 0)

at least at a neighborhood level.  A few restaurants in a neighborhood is great.  If your block becomes restaurant row, then your quality of life tanks, and the problems may overflow to other neighborhoods too.

I don't know what the right number is or how they should be issued -- I'd be curious to see how "sister" cities of Boston do it.

---

by: stomv @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:56:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

really? (0.00 / 0)

I don't want to be glib, but are you referring to the slum that is Newbury/Boylston Sts?  Tremont St?  Bigger threat to QOL on Dot Ave: restaurants with liquor licenses or auto-related businesses (garages, tow lots, used car dealers)?

I think your concern is a street becoming frat row (i.e., bars), not restaurant row.  And the city should be able to control that in other ways: closing times, noise restrictions, beer/wine vs. liquor licenses, police presence when necessary.

---

by: paddynoons @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 14:25:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, really. (6.00 / 1)

Other concerns [auto-businesses, bar-row] are also concerns, but restaurant row can be miserable too.

Imagine if your street changed from Endicott St to Salem St, for example.  Restaurants bring tons of auto traffic, loads of weekend evening noise, etc.  A few are manageable; too many and you hit the point of no return.  Many people would like to live near Salem St; few want to live on Salem St.

The city can control things like noise, etc en masse but sometimes the solution is just to limit the total number.  Like I wrote, I'd be curious to see what other cities with the density of Boston do.

---

by: stomv @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 14:34:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

Rush Street in Chicago, or Shadyside Ave in Pittsburgh, both restaurant-heavy streets are each contiguous to desireable neighborhoods.

---

by: gary @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 14:54:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As is Salem St (0.00 / 0)

Contiguous to desirable neighborhoods, sure.

But that's different than living on the street itself.  I'd love to live in the North End*, but never on that first three block stretch of Salem or Hanover.

* Well, kind of.  I'd get really fat, spend too much money, and be frustrated with the distance to the T.  But I'd love every minute of waist stretching and wallet emptying.

---

by: stomv @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 15:23:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

fair point (0.00 / 0)

I guess I have three responses:

1) this transformation probably wouldn't happen overnight.  People could adjust their housing in line with preferences over the long run.  And the people who want to move away probably would not be losing value, at least as evidenced by housing prices in these "happening" neighborhoods.

2) the North End is a pretty unique neighborhood because its a restaurant mecca, drawing suburbanites and tourists.  Most of the city isn't like that, so we probably shouldn't have a city-wide policy for them.  I can't imagine how there could be so many restaurants in Brighton, Dorchester, Southie, Charlestown, Roslindale, etc., that you'd get those negative effects.  

3) to that end, the citing of these new places would be on commercial-zoned streets (think Comm Ave, Broadway, etc.).  You wouldn't have to worry about an Arby's showing up in the middle of a residential neighborhood.  And if you already live on a mixed-use street, is a restaurant really worse than other potential uses?

---

by: paddynoons @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 15:44:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

fair responses (0.00 / 0)

2) Unusual?  Sure.  Unique?  I'm not so sure.  There's sections of A-B that are similar... not in quality, but certainly quantity.  More restaurant/bar/club situation, but same principle.

3) As a big fan of mixed-use streets, a single restaurant isn't worse, but lots of restaurants are worse.
- hours of operation for retail are earlier in the day
- noise levels of retail are lower
- smells of retail aren't as pervasive [not just cooking, but refuse]

Additionally, the beauty of mixed use is that there's lots of functioning retail near you.  A grocer, a dry cleaner, a pub, a convenience store, a hardware store, etc.  If they all get chased out by restaurants, then you don't get to enjoy the functionality of the mixed-use space.

What does all of this have to do with a limit on liquor licenses?  Admittedly, not much at this point...

---

by: stomv @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 17:02:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Big Drink Culture (6.00 / 1)

Part and parcel of a way of doing business on Beacon Hill that leaves many people singularly unimpressed.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 13:31:47 PM CST

Again, how are we suppose to have faith in government with scenarios like this. (0.00 / 0)

There are so many of these sweetheart deals going on and serendipity is our only ally in finding them out. This board, complete with its hacks making $85K, is an insult to a society that is watching drastic cuts in necessary services. Its more than a joke, its immoral.

I have been beating on unions lately and the main reason is very similar to this BLB situation where greed and selfishness is paramount to safety, practical sense and cost. Today's Globe has an article "Fire Dept. defends using trucks for medical calls" shows more reasons why something has got to be done.

Some notable quotes which should make us question a few things...

Last year, medical calls accounted for 37 percent of the 70,176 runs made by Boston firefighters.

Much like we discusssed about needed fire fighters to be mechanics for fire trucks... do we need fire fighters to be ambulance drivers.

Fire departments nationwide responded to 1.64 million fire calls in 2006, compared with 2.98 million in 1980, a 44 percent decline, according to the Quincy-based National Fire Protection Association. But at the same time, the association said, they went on more medical calls: from 5 million in 1980 to 15 million in 2006, a 200 percent increase.

Do we need as many fire fighters if there continues to be declines in working fires? Boston's fire department budget is $161M with 1550 fire fighters this year and they had only 60 working fires which does not sound very cost effective.

In the 1990s, a Boston Finance Commission report found a similar trend here. In 1993, the report found, the Boston Fire Department responded to 47,670 calls, roughly the same as a decade before. But there were about 50 percent fewer fires, the report went on to say, meaning an increase in medical runs, not fires, was keeping Fire Department numbers steady.

Again, maybe we need to hire more EMTs and buy new ambulances, not fire trucks.

But even small attempts at changing the practice of sending firefighters to medical calls have sparked outcry in recent years. When the Romney administration, at the urging of Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, approved new regulations in 2004 allowing nursing homes to circumvent 911 and call private ambulance companies directly, the state firefighters union and fire chiefs association sued the governor, alleging that political donations from ambulance companies had greased the wheels of change.

The union once again is putting their needs ahead of the community. They want money and more of it. Reminds me of personal liability cases where the lawyers say "This is not about the $10 million award, we are trying to make a point and protect the public." HA!

I hope people don't reply with remarks like "If your house was burning down I'm sure you would be glad to see a fire fighter...". I have already said I would take help from "anybody" in an emergency, who wouldn't? I also have said I have family in the fire department. All I am trying to say is the government and any auxiliary organization needs to be nimble and adapt to changes in society's needs, be it the Boston Licensing Board, government's budgets, organizations like the fire department, schools...  

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 16:34:27 PM CST

Changing the actors doesn't change the play. (0.00 / 0)

Of all the avenues of bribe and extortion the liquor license is right around the top.  None by the most naive believe that a license in granted on any basis but through corrupt officials.  Certainly no government body will easily give up the power.

But, were my Pollyanna hope of a new, bright tomorrow to come true, there are a few ways to accomplish the task.  

Do away with liquor licenses.  Does anyone think that it will change anyone's liquor habits?  It will not entice the teatotaller nor satisfy the alcoholic.  As a revenue instrument the license has more income for corrupt officials than the government.

Distribute liquor licenses based upon the vote of the people in the neighborhood local to the proposed establishment.  Give power to the people.  What could be better for a democratic people?

Lottery of licenses.  Lottery income, the tax on the dumb, is down.  Why not let anyone take the chance of having their own license?

Change.  I like the idea.

---

by: John Beresford Tipton @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 17:26:56 PM CST

How does everyone else do it? (0.00 / 0)

I think Boards of Selectmen do this for towns.  There should be licensing, but no absolute maximum.  Also, zoning ordinances can handle some of this.  Maybe there's a way to establish a state-level appelate process to ameliorate the effects of town politics and connections.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 21:19:01 PM CST

Yes, It Is An Anachronism But.... (0.00 / 0)

....do you really want to give Menino another venue to engage in his version of Pay to Play ?  

The political reality is that the mayor of Boston, especially this Mayor, controls the BLB, irrespective of the Board members being formally appointed by the sitting governor.  If the BLB was still some Brahmin protected sanctuary, removed from the shenanigans of City Hall politics, why was Sen. Wilkerson so intent on selling access to Tom Menino when she was allegedly allowing herself to be bribed for her help with a Boston liquor license?  

The answer, for anyone who has ever legitimately attempted to permit any project of any magnitude in the City is clear:  The Mayor controls everything. Access to him is only possible through the retention of a small coterie of lobbyists he favors.  Forget what your rights to fair hearings, to due process, to legally established time frames, or to objective project review may be. Think you have a right to open public meetings, or to easy access to "public records" at City Hall?  Think again.  Your rights under the law simply don't matter.

Look how hard and long Sam Yoon has had to fight to require that City agencies abide by a modicum of open, public, and transparent processes in the conduct of the public's business.

The personal and subjective opinion of the Mayor is the sole deciding factor in any City Hall venue. He micromanages everything.  Any action of any consequence in City Hall requires his blessing. From department heads to clerks, everyone in City Hall knows that is how the system works. Any City employee violates that first rule at his or her peril.  If Tom Menino doesn't have the time or inclination to be bothered with your application for a permit, license, or zoning decision of any import, sit and wait.

His decision can only be influenced by successfully running through his Administration's version of Pay to Play.  Hire from a select small group of lobbyists.  Bundle campaign contributions.  Hand the bundled contributions over through your assigned lobbyist.  The machine is happy.  You may get your permits, sometime.

Read the recent spate of stories in both the Globe and the Herald about how the Mayor's son has a sweetheart job with Suffolk Construction, a firm that is subject to City inspections on a daily basis.  That is but one minor look, one rare public look, at the way the system works.

Tom Menino has constructed a textbook example of how corruption gets a foothold in a local jurisdiction.  Yes, OK, the BLB is a throw back to an ugly time in Massachusetts.  Reform the BLB?  Yes, of course.  Invest more highly discretionary power in an arbitrary and petulant Mayor of Boston.  No so much.

   

---

by: MassDemWarhorse @ Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 22:12:07 PM CST

Yes, I want Boston to control its own licenses (0.00 / 0)

Not the state house. As a resident of Boston, I want liquor licenses to be under the control of my city not meddling politicians from other parts of the state. Let Boston's citizens take care of their own problems.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:32:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the idea that this is a gig that nets 83k a year (0.00 / 0)

is pretty absurd when just giving it to city hall could probably save almost all those salaried positions while making it a better, fairer process. Doesn't seem like a whole ton of work. Surely, those jobs could be done by people already at the city hall who aren't on that board. Maybe by the board's secretaries? LOL.

The idea that there's so few liquor licenses seems a bit absurd to me. Shouldn't it be an open process... you pay for the liquor license if you meet the requirements and be done with it? That would, at least, remove the need for politics in the position. It may just mean liquor would cost a bit less, too, with some more competition in the city.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 02:17:07 AM CST