The New Retail Thread

Lrfox said:
Has anyone here ever had a problem with this? I haven't as long as it's within reason. Last 4th, a group of us grabbed a blanket, sat on the Comm. Ave Mall, had a couple of bottles of wine chilling in the open, and ate cheese and crackers before heading over to the Esplanade (where booze was explicitly not allowed) for the fireworks. No problem. A few police officers walked by, glanced our way, and kept walking.

I've also had a bottle of wine in the open with my girlfriend on Long Wharf on more occasion than one last summer and fall.

I am right there with you in terms of the "it should be legal" chorus, but I also don't know that law enforcement is really coming down on people with an iron fist. Especially if it's done respectfully. In each of these situations, the worst case I can imagine is a police officer telling us to put it away.
Click to expand...

They come down on different people differently. As is the case with laws in general, color blind on paper does not mean it is in reality. Enforcement is conditional and changes the practice on the ground considerably.
 
jl326 said:
You're making it sound like there aren't already quite enough belligerent homeless people around.

Anyways, I'm in support of the idea of relaxing laws about outdoor drinking. I just wouldn't want drunkards and all the silly behavior (and property damage?) that could go along with it.
Click to expand...

If you have a problem with belligerent homeless people how about advocating for housing first policies rather than further criminalization, further trapping them in a cycle of poverty.
 
tysmith95 said:
I remember going to the St Patties day parade a few years ago and the police were giving out tons of drinking tickets.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely. Enforcement depends on environment (and other factors as others have mentioned). 4 friends sitting on a blanket under a tree sipping wine =/= 100s of wannabe Sully's chugging Budlights and ripping Jameson shots while puking on the street in front of families.

Justin7 said:
I'd wager that what kind of trouble you get into is largely dependent on what you look like and the particular mood of the particular officer you are dealing with. That is the problem with selectively enforced laws.
Click to expand...

coleslaw said:
They come down on different people differently. As is the case with laws in general, color blind on paper does not mean it is in reality. Enforcement is conditional and changes the practice on the ground considerably.
Click to expand...

I realized my post screamed "white privilege" when I wrote it, and I agree with both of you. It's why I definitely think the laws need to be relaxed for everyone.
 
If I could change one law with respect to "things Boston could relax on" I would lift the Commonwealth-imposed cap on municipal liquor licenses. Let the cities and towns decide how many they want to permit. Having the Commonwealth decide this for them makes zero sense. The enforcement of liquor licenses has a place in our society; caps on liquor licenses set by the Commonwealth and not the individual cities and towns do not.

So many of the issues with Greater Boston's social scene follow directly from the Commonwealth restricting how many liquor licenses can be issued. It makes everything more expensive (including food and drinks); pushes small, funky, independent bars, clubs, and restaurants out of the market; and turns every establishment generic, loud, and overcrowded. It's really hard to have a cool little music venue or a chill neighborhood (quiet) pub when there are only a set number of licenses to go around and everyone needs to compete for them with huge bars and clubs that will pay six-figures plus.

The laws hit Boston particularly hard (Boston gets fewer licenses per capita than the rest of the Commonwealth because back in the day Beacon Hill didn't trust the Irishmen that ran the City with alcohol) but other cities and towns also suffer. Some have tried to get around this cap (see: Cambridge) but have done it in insanely unfair and backwards ways.

Most of the opposition to expanding liquor licenses is born out of the cap on licenses itself. For one, existing holders of licenses paid a ton of money to get theirs, so they don't want new competition to have a competitive advantage by gaining access to new licenses for less. I'd propose a gradual increase in licenses over time, with the fees for newly issued licenses used to "pay back" incumbent license holders. Additionally, the NIMBY public pushes back on license increases because they look at current license holders and see loud, obnoxious bars and clubs and decide that they don't want more of these in their neighborhoods. The thing with licenses is that the loud obnoxious bars are the first to procure them (they have the highest willingness to pay) while the quiet neighborhood places are the last to procure them (they have the lowest willingness to pay). Thus, more licenses mean more quiet neighborhood places, not more mega-venues (i.e., the mega-venues already got theirs, the quiet bars haven't). Travel around Europe and there's a little cafe serving wine on every corner; this is because they don't have license caps in most of Europe. In Massachusetts, this is illegal. Even in other US cities where licenses are easier to obtain you find way more "quiet bars;" Boston has very few of these. And even if you do support a cap on licenses, there's no reason it should come from the State and not the City.
 
JumboBuc said:
The laws hit Boston particularly hard (Boston gets fewer licenses per capita than the rest of the Commonwealth because back in the day Beacon Hill didn't trust the Irishmen that ran the City with alcohol) but other cities and towns also suffer.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure once the Irish gain some political clout in the state this will change.
 
Bos77 said:
Another point of London; it's not just drinking at a pub outdoors, but even having a casual drink in a park. There is nothing better than a summer evening with a bottle of wine, or two, or three spent having a picnic or bbq with friends. Literally hundreds of people just chilling out. That would NEVER be allowed in Boston. Think of the children...
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Brazil has no public drinking laws either, so when I was living in São Paulo, oftentimes on Friday I would grab a beer for the walk home from the office. It was great being able to have a nice relaxing stroll home sipping a beer after a long week.

I'm sure people would freak out about a proposal like this and paint a picture of pure mayhem in the streets but, outside of the Carnaval Blocos, I honestly didn't see any more out of control public drunkenness than I have in Boston or here in Denver.

JumboBuc said:
If I could change one law with respect to "things Boston could relax on" I would lift the Commonwealth-imposed cap on municipal liquor licenses. Let the cities and towns decide how many they want to permit. Having the Commonwealth decide this for them makes zero sense. The enforcement of liquor licenses has a place in our society; caps on liquor licenses set by the Commonwealth and not the individual cities and towns do not.

So many of the issues with Greater Boston's social scene follow directly from the Commonwealth restricting how many liquor licenses can be issued. It makes everything more expensive (including food and drinks); pushes small, funky, independent bars, clubs, and restaurants out of the market; and turns every establishment generic, loud, and overcrowded. It's really hard to have a cool little music venue or a chill neighborhood (quiet) pub when there are only a set number of licenses to go around and everyone needs to compete for them with huge bars and clubs that will pay six-figures plus.

The laws hit Boston particularly hard (Boston gets fewer licenses per capita than the rest of the Commonwealth because back in the day Beacon Hill didn't trust the Irishmen that ran the City with alcohol) but other cities and towns also suffer. Some have tried to get around this cap (see: Cambridge) but have done it in insanely unfair and backwards ways.

Most of the opposition to expanding liquor licenses is born out of the cap on licenses itself. For one, existing holders of licenses paid a ton of money to get theirs, so they don't want new competition to have a competitive advantage by gaining access to new licenses for less. I'd propose a gradual increase in licenses over time, with the fees for newly issued licenses used to "pay back" incumbent license holders. Additionally, the NIMBY public pushes back on license increases because they look at current license holders and see loud, obnoxious bars and clubs and decide that they don't want more of these in their neighborhoods. The thing with licenses is that the loud obnoxious bars are the first to procure them (they have the highest willingness to pay) while the quiet neighborhood places are the last to procure them (they have the lowest willingness to pay). Thus, more licenses mean more quiet neighborhood places, not more mega-venues (i.e., the mega-venues already got theirs, the quiet bars haven't). Travel around Europe and there's a little cafe serving wine on every corner; this is because they don't have license caps in most of Europe. In Massachusetts, this is illegal. Even in other US cities where licenses are easier to obtain you find way more "quiet bars;" Boston has very few of these. And even if you do support a cap on licenses, there's no reason it should come from the State and not the City.
Click to expand...

Perfectly stated. Agreed 100%.
 
Last edited:
Bos77 said:
And that's more my gripe with dogs. There are limits to where pets are appropriate, or not. London as an example, is very lenient, but has a common sense approach. A more formal dining room, or bakery with food out in the open is a no. The casual pub, pub garden, patio cafe, etc, it's shocking if there isn't a dog sleeping in the corner. Nobody in the UK is dying because of dogs around casual food service.

Another point of London; it's not just drinking at a pub outdoors, but even having a casual drink in a park. There is nothing better than a summer evening with a bottle of wine, or two, or three spent having a picnic or bbq with friends. Literally hundreds of people just chilling out. That would NEVER be allowed in Boston. Think of the children...
Click to expand...

I was in New Zealand last year and in Queenstown there were packs of younger kids (probably late teens and early 20s) hanging out on the beat of a lake drinking beer and wine. My wife and I were watching in astonishment as the kids neatly placed their beer cans, beer bottles and wine bottles right next to the recycle cans that were already full. When we were in Sydney later in our trip we bought a couple of bottles of wine and sat out in the botanical gardens and ate our lunch and enjoyed the nice weather - no one batted an eye.
 
mass88 said:
I was in New Zealand last year and in Queenstown there were packs of younger kids (probably late teens and early 20s) hanging out on the beat of a lake drinking beer and wine. My wife and I were watching in astonishment as the kids neatly placed their beer cans, beer bottles and wine bottles right next to the recycle cans that were already full. When we were in Sydney later in our trip we bought a couple of bottles of wine and sat out in the botanical gardens and ate our lunch and enjoyed the nice weather - no one batted an eye.
Click to expand...

In addition to doing this in here in Boston, one of my favorite traditions in San Francisco is to grab some wine or good beer and snacks and head down to Baker Beach to watch the sunset. Police are always around and nobody cares. There have to be better ways to enforce responsible consumption of alcoholic beverages in public than a sweeping "No!"
 
statler said:
Well, I'm sure once the Irish gain some political clout in the state this will change.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't think that the Irish identity is as strong as it used to be (other then St Patties day). Basically people of Irish ancestry today are indistinguishable from people of Scottish, British, Scandinavian, etc. It's all "white", and the "privileged" class today.

Most of the "Irish" people in America today have been here for generations. And most young white people today are mixed with different "white" ethnicityies.
 
Lrfox said:
Last 4th, a group of us grabbed a blanket, sat on the Comm. Ave Mall, had a couple of bottles of wine chilling in the open, and ate cheese and crackers before heading over to the Esplanade (where booze was explicitly not allowed) for the fireworks. No problem. A few police officers walked by, glanced our way, and kept walking.
Click to expand...

I was an interpretive ranger at a small urban state park in the late 1990s. Under state law, drinking in state parks is illegal, but I was told by my supervisor more or less "People enjoying a glass of wine in the park with a picnic is fine" and to look the other way, but to report anything that might be more problematic, IE, a group with a case of beer making a mess, pregaming, etc and to radio it to control so that they can summon DEM (now DCR) Enforcement Rangers, Environmental Police, or State Police. Homeless people were held to pretty much the same standard IE: if they're not bothering anyone, don't bother them (even if drinking), but if they're harassing other park users, radio it in to control. Anyone asleep or passed out on a bench was shooed out, regardless of whether or not they appeared homeless.
 
Roxxma said:
I was an interpretive ranger at a small urban state park in the late 1990s. Under state law, drinking in state parks is illegal, but I was told by my supervisor more or less "People enjoying a glass of wine in the park with a picnic is fine" and to look the other way, but to report anything that might be more problematic, IE, a group with a case of beer making a mess, pregaming, etc and to radio it to control so that they can summon DEM (now DCR) Enforcement Rangers, Environmental Police, or State Police. Homeless people were held to pretty much the same standard IE: if they're not bothering anyone, don't bother them (even if drinking), but if they're harassing other park users, radio it in to control. Anyone asleep or passed out on a bench was shooed out, regardless of whether or not they appeared homeless.
Click to expand...

Litter remains a problem but I wonder how many heads would explode if the western slope of the Common suddenly turned into Dolores Park for a day.
 
tysmith95 said:
Honestly I don't think that the Irish identity is as strong as it used to be (other then St Patties day). Basically people of Irish ancestry today are indistinguishable from people of Scottish, British, Scandinavian, etc. It's all "white", and the "privileged" class today.

Most of the "Irish" people in America today have been here for generations. And most young white people today are mixed with different "white" ethnicityies.
Click to expand...

You do know that Statler was being sarcastic there, right? If his tongue was any more firmly embedded in his cheek, it would need to have been peeled off with a spatula...
 
L.L. Bean opens in the Seaport on 4/6. Signage was posted yesterday by Back Bay Sign Co.
 
Roxxma said:
I was an interpretive ranger at a small urban state park in the late 1990s. Under state law, drinking in state parks is illegal, but I was told by my supervisor more or less "People enjoying a glass of wine in the park with a picnic is fine" and to look the other way, but to report anything that might be more problematic, IE, a group with a case of beer making a mess, pregaming, etc and to radio it to control so that they can summon DEM (now DCR) Enforcement Rangers, Environmental Police, or State Police. Homeless people were held to pretty much the same standard IE: if they're not bothering anyone, don't bother them (even if drinking), but if they're harassing other park users, radio it in to control. Anyone asleep or passed out on a bench was shooed out, regardless of whether or not they appeared homeless.
Click to expand...

I had a similar experience - I was a seasonal park supervisor at a DCR state park in college (2007-08) with day use and camping facilities. Drinking is illegal at these facilities. We were instructed (both by DCR staff, and Environmental Police and MSP) to use discretion. In fact, I would go out with some of the rangers and police on walks through the facility and unless it was belligerent (like really belligerent, or someone called to complain), we ignored it. Even if someone had a case of beer or a handle of something out in the open, if they were otherwise respectful, we'd quietly tell them to keep it out of site. The approach was essentially "if I can't see it, it's not there." The attitude was generally that people are going to drink regardless of the law, and as long as it's they're not a problem, we don't care. There are bigger fish to fry.

Interestingly, booze couldn't be confiscated. It was "destroyed on site." Essentially on the few occasions where we did take it, it was poured out in front of the guests. The reason is to eliminate the notion that the cop or ranger is just going to take it and drink it his or herself.

Anyway, this is way off topic at this point. But the law should be changed to make it easier for the people who want to respectfully enjoy a drink in public to do so.

cjbski said:
L.L. Bean opens in the Seaport on 4/6. Signage was posted yesterday by Back Bay Sign Co.
Click to expand...

I hope they last in this location, but I wonder how they'll do long term with all of the changes? The brand is making changes in its warranty (which, for many, was one of the big selling points), beginning buyouts, and ending pensions. It's a clear change in strategy and I think the Boston store is another example of that. They're exceptionally popular now, but when the popularity cools off (and it will), I'm not confident this store will stick around.
 
L.L. Bean will probably do fine in this location for now - but if REI, for example, decides to open a shop on this side of the city, it'll be gone baby gone in a heartbeat.
 
7-Eleven is opening on Boylston Street next to Uno's. Long-vacant space with construction for at least the past year will be nice to see a retailer fill.

La Colombe coffee was supposed be going in behind the Pru (at W. Newton and St. Botolph Streets), but they've halted that project and windows papered over. Too bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top