The conflict over North End outdoor dining (Boston, Hanover: real estate, high schools)

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

Walsh never tried to do anything like this. It's not just some routine policy that people are getting riled up by. It's unprecedented.



What did they sign up for? Those restaurants aren't new; the North End has always been a popular food/entertainment district for as long as I've been alive.



There are bookstores and clothing retailers that have set up outside, no?



Definitely doesn't need to be adding $4 to anyone's tabs then..

Walsh never did this but had he, I’m confident the reaction would be very different. This is after all a guy who never got any scrutiny for anything ever. Not his gunshot wound, alcoholism, federal probes, bring of Dennis white and Carlos henriquez, his giving Monica Cannon Grant a free building and additional city monies, payments to his gfs employment. If you don’t think Wu’s gender and race has been a factor in her treatment from the old guard thus far your willfully looking the other way. And it hasn’t just ceased to be an issue here. North End business owners are pretty representative of the old guard.

They signed up for 77 indoor restaurants. Not 70 outdoor restaurants. You’re saying that not two different things?

Maybe I’ve been gone to long because I’ve only ever see one bookstore with merchandise outside, in between the common and DTX. Any other time it’s been at an MBTA station like Downtown Crossing. Or firmly 20 years ago in Nubian Square. Maybe I’ve just been gone too long? But I haven’t ever seen it. Not in my visits since the pandemic either.

Definitely could pay the $7500 with all the added monthly visitors then. Most if not all of them could. They’ve got a hardship waiver option now if they cant. That is very reasonable.

[msRB311]

Nope people just want more and more money for themselves caring little about the customers.

[Urban Peasant]

If this issue is taken to court, it will be interesting to hear what the court has to say. First at issue here is the $7,500 fee which the North End restaurateurs claim unfairly targets them because no other neighborhoods have to pay it. Would this be violating their 14th Amendment rights? Then comes the messier nuisance issue in which the court will have to prove that what the restaurants are doing is in fact causing a public nuisance. Thirdly, the court will have to decide on the justification by the City to impose a fee to potentially deter restaurateurs from setting up outdoor dining. I mean I know from today's news that the vast majority of restaurateurs refuse to pay the fee but theoretically what if all 77 restaurateurs do pay the fee? Then wouldn't the City be back to square one with outdoor patios set up everywhere and traffic problems abound thereby not accomplishing anything than collecting extra money? Would this fee constitute no grounded basis to actually solve the nuisance problem? Oh man, this reminds me of the land-use planning cases I studied about back in graduate school. This will not be the last time such an issue comes up either I bet.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

If this issue is taken to court, it will be interesting to hear what the court has to say. First at issue here is the $7,500 fee which the North End restaurateurs claim unfairly targets them because no other neighborhoods have to pay it. Would this be violating their 14th Amendment rights? Then comes the messier nuisance issue in which the court will have to prove that what the restaurants are doing is in fact causing a public nuisance. Thirdly, the court will have to decide on the justification by the City to impose a fee to potentially deter restaurateurs from setting up outdoor dining. I mean I know from today's news that the vast majority of restaurateurs refuse to pay the fee but theoretically what if all 77 restaurateurs do pay the fee? Then wouldn't the City be back to square one with outdoor patios set up everywhere and traffic problems abound thereby not accomplishing anything than collecting extra money? Would this fee constitute no grounded basis to actually solve the nuisance problem? Oh man, this reminds me of the land-use planning cases I studied about back in graduate school. This will not be the last time such an issue comes up either I bet.

I think Adrian Walker summed it up pretty well: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/...utdoor-dining/

Some restaurant owners have threatened to sue, claiming they are being picked on. They’re going to have a serious uphill battle.

First of all, outdoor dining is just a pilot program — of course the city can modify it. Besides that, the city’s authority to regulate restaurants is broad — that’s why they can send inspectors into their kitchens or shut them down after a brawl.

Simply put, the right to put tables on city sidewalks and in city streets and serve food simply doesn’t exist. It’s hard to see a lawsuit going anywhere.

...

This is a good battle for Wu, in the sense that she really can’t lose. If the residents (and voters) of the neighborhood support the regulations, as I believe they do, the rage of a few restaurant owners isn’t really politically harmful.

In that sense, the restaurant owners share a lot with the antivax protesters who have hounded Wu for months. They, too, have found that their ability to cause political damage is really pretty limited.

There’s an old saying that you can’t fight City Hall. Of course you can, but it helps to have a stronger cause than this one. Ultimately, the restaurants were given the city’s sidewalks and streets on loan.

The restaurant owners are already splintering and have been joined by the crazies outside Wu's house. They cant win.

[bostongymjunkie]

They don't need to cause political damage, this administration does that well enough on its own. lol

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

They don't need to cause political damage, this administration does that well enough on its own. lol

Most of her fights are with people who don’t live in Boston. They work there but don’t live there. Ultimately she’s pissed off shakily employed a small group of anti vaxxers who we know are from the suburbs (Shana Cottone type) and more firefighters who also don’t live in the city. A lot of these people have been doxxed.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Most of her fights are with people who don’t live in Boston.

Do you live in Boston?

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by porterhouse

Do you live in Boston?

Why are you asking question you know the answer too. Can you skip to your point? I’m lukewarm curious to know where this is going.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Remember when I said m*******s have a penchant for arrogance and faux moral higher ground? This is example A.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Remember when I said m*******s have a penchant for arrogance and faux moral higher ground? This is example A.

You're becoming self aware. Good for you.

I find it telling that you spend the majority of your day rage posting about a city/state/region which you don't live in.