The conflict over North End outdoor dining (Boston: insurance, to buy)

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

I'm curious why people think all rules apply to every neighborhood the same- they never have.

-The city buys property in low-income areas and then sells it off to community developers for a song. A practice they don't do in the Back Bay. And have been doing for some time.

-You need a parking permit for some neighborhoods- others dont.

-Some neighborhoods have far more blue bikes some don't have them at all.

-Some areas of the city are "opportunity zones" (Granted that's federal)

-Some neighborhoods of the city are now zoned or at least planned for 2/3rds affordable housing (Nubian Square/Egleston Square) most aren't.

-In some central areas, businesses have to coordinate their own trash pick up in other areas they can use the municipal system.

-When I lived in Roxbury we had trash pick up twice a week. In Hyde Park only once a week. No one says anything. You can go to the city's website and confirm this.

This also isn't a law- it's a pilot program. Meaning the city can do what it wants with it and really technically shouldn't be extending it beyond 2 years in the first place.

If you think people will remember this once outdoor dining is back or the next City of Boston news cycle comes around, okay. I just dont think so.

I don't think any of these really compare. Investing isn't the same as taxing (obviously many investments are going to be tied to a location). But in this case this sounds more like a punitive tax than anything else. As in, the only way this works is if some of the restaurants cannot make ends meet and don't use outdoor spaces. But isn't than this an excessive financial burden?

This is more akin to the federal government saying that in MA you are going to pay an extra tax that none else is the country has to pay rather than the federal government making a multi-billion dollar investment in MA. Which, in this terms.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Lampert

I don't think any of these really compare. Investing isn't the same as taxing (obviously many investments are going to be tied to a location). But in this case this sounds more like a punitive tax than anything else. As in, the only way this works is if some of the restaurants cannot make ends meet and don't use outdoor spaces. But isn't than this an excessive financial burden?

This is more akin to the federal government saying that in MA you are going to pay an extra tax that none else is the country has to pay rather than the federal government making a multi-billion dollar investment in MA. Which, in this terms.

Not sure why those don't compare- but alright, I won't dwell. Just remember that not all neighborhoods get the same treatment from the city on all issues. That is true.

To the bolded..Really? I seriously doubt it. If 7500 plus a smallish monthly fee means you cant make it you are probably not in the North End of Boston and if you are ,like Msrb311 said, youre business model is seriously messed up and you need to rethink your food costs or operating hours. Regardless, your restaurant isn't guaranteed to make it. Just like housing shouldn't be guaranteed to create a windfall of wealth. The idea that some industries or neighborhoods are simply expected to always thrive -no matter what- is entitlement.

I don't agree with your federal analogy simply because it's not true that there is no investment in Boston. The whole city is doing this, and benefitting the North End gets outdoor dining. In your analogy, nothing (new) is being given to MA. We've also been told what the fee will go towards.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by Lampert

As in, the only way this works is if some of the restaurants cannot make ends meet and don't use outdoor spaces. But isn't than this an excessive financial burden?

Agreed. And since the whole point seems to be getting restaurants back indoors as much as possible, the addition of a “hardship waiver” really seems to undermine the whole thing.

[John Rose]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

I'm going to guess she's catering to the people who catered to her politically.

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Look where my hand was

[John Rose]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

That's what happens when you surround yourself with a bunch of Farrakhan minimes.

This comment literally makes no sense in this context. But I guess it shows where your simple mind is at.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Online comments. Sorry, there's no poll on the issue.

This survey found 68% think it's unfair.


https://www.boston.com/community/rea...1=hp_secondary

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

This survey found 68% think it's unfair.


https://www.boston.com/community/rea...1=hp_secondary

They put a form on their website and asked their readers. The sample is representative only of Boston.com readers that are interested enough in the problem to submit the form.
Using it as an indication of what the entire population of Boston thinks it's not statistically sound.
It's basically the same as "online comments" BBMM was talking about.

[bostongymjunkie]

Please point to where it used as an "indication of what the entire population of Boston thinks." While you're at it feel free to post your own polls or surveys. I disagree that it's the same as looking at online comments and then using that to support the assertion that most people agree with, and nobody knows where those commentators live. As a side note, people outside Boston also influence Boston in many ways since they vote with their business (money) in the city.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

This survey found 68% think it's unfair.


https://www.boston.com/community/rea...1=hp_secondary

No one would vote on this who doesn't have a point to prove and that gonna be the opposing group. Still, it does seem unpopular but I think people understand why it exists. Sadly for everyone who thinks it's unfair- it's not going to change. Lots are unfair about the Boston dining scene this is so far from as unfair as other more longstanding inequities I have to laugh a little bit.

The regulations are onerous. Only 10 full liquor licenses out of 800+ are owned by black people and that is only because of new additions like the Pearl and Park 54. And the early closing times mandated by neighborhood groups. It's all "unfair" But I imagine Noth End restaurants are frequented by Boston.com readers way more than Dorchester restaurants are- thus they care a lot more.

[bostongymjunkie]

"It's all unfair" so let's keep doing it right? Seems to me that those who are actually committed to principles of fairness would not use other injustices or unfairness as a way to justify something they support or that benefits them. But since you do this all the time, I'm not surprised.