Take Back The Streets (...and alleys)

stefal

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,809
Reaction score
2,752
In an alternate universe, the City of Boston resumes business as they had the past two years, a horrible car accident (4 separate links) occurs where the restaurant wasn't insured and didn't use jersey barriers, the restaurants would blame the City for not telling them to put larger barriers, and the customers would complain that city employees are inept at their job and so far corrupted that they were incapable of regulating it.
 

KCasiglio

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
299
In an alternate universe, the City of Boston resumes business as they had the past two years, a horrible car accident (4 separate links) occurs where the restaurant wasn't insured and didn't use jersey barriers, the restaurants would blame the City for not telling them to put larger barriers, and the customers would complain that city employees are inept at their job and so far corrupted that they were incapable of regulating it.
I'm really glad you posted this while I was halfway through typing my own response because it helps perfectly illustrate the point I was having a hard time wording.

While many of the regulations are common sense, placing the onus on the restaurants to accommodate irresponsible driving is irritating. The problem is not the restaurant, it's the person driving their 2000lb hunk of metal into the patio. The city should not be held responsible for not mandating car-proof patios at the restaurants expense, they should be held responsible for routinely neglecting to enforce traffic laws. For example, in the 2nd article you link the problem is the guy driving "50-60 mph" - the solution isn't to make patios that can resist an SUV driving into them at 60mph, the solution is to prevent, through design and enforcement, an SUV from driving 60mph into a restaurant patio!
 

xec

Active Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
628
Reaction score
467
Does San Francisco have the same requirements for jersey barriers and insurance? And if so, is it the only other place that does?

I'd actually feel better about all this if there was a precedent, and not just City Hall asking businesses to shill out thousands of dollars for minimal benefit.
I actually don't know whether it does or not. My comment was based on some articles I've read in the SF Chronicle about how difficult and expensive it is to open and run a small business in San Francisco. None of the articles were specifically about outdoor dining or jersey barriers. They were about the forms, fees, taxes, permits, regulations, approvals, inspections, etc. etc. etc. that business owners have to go thru. There was one story in particular about a guy who wanted to open some sort of ice cream shop that read like both tragedy (for him) and farce (because of all the crap the city requires to open an ice cream shop). The Globe story makes it sound like Wu's requirements are starting to have the same effect on restaurants that SF regulations had on this guy.

I'd link the ice cream story, but the Chronicle has put up a pay wall and I can't read their stuff anymore.
 

fatnoah

Active Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
150
Reaction score
146
While many of the regulations are common sense, placing the onus on the restaurants to accommodate irresponsible driving is irritating.
Totally agree. What's especially interesting about many areas of Boston such as the North End, Newbury Street, Charles Street, etc. is that the density of humans on the sidewalk is such that adding diners doesn't substantially increase the number or overall density of people on the sidewalk. i.e. the impact of someone driving onto the sidewalk would roughly be equivalent.
 

Scott

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
955
Reaction score
385
I mean this without an ounce of snark: why? And who would be this grassroots? The aloof Brahman residents aren't going to get involved in anything
You don't understand I am saying that either the neighbors want it or it shouldn't happen. We should stick to knowing what is good for where we live not other places
 

KCasiglio

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
299
You don't understand I am saying that either the neighbors want it or it shouldn't happen. We should stick to knowing what is good for where we live not other places
No I entirely understand what you're saying, I'm disagreeing with it specifically in the aforementioned case of Newbury Street.
 

Scott

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
955
Reaction score
385
The conversation was about making Hanover Street pedestrian only
 

KCasiglio

Active Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
173
Reaction score
299
The conversation was about making Hanover Street pedestrian only
The post you responded to specifically cited Newbury, hence why I called the local residents Bhramins and wouldn't acknowledge political involvement of someone living on Newbury to be grassroots.

Hanover is another debate, and while the views of the residents (and not just who can/will show up to an evening meeting for public comment) should of course be taken into consideration I vehemently disagree that it should be the only and final say. Perhaps you don't live in Boston, in which sure stick to where you know. But to say only a North End resident can have an opinion on Hannover is ludicrous. Should we gate the community as well? Is it not already exclusive enough?
 

Top