The conflict over North End outdoor dining (Boston, Salem: homes, landlord)

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

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.

Originally Posted by porterhouse

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.

1. I'm still waiting on an answer.

2. What does it tell you?

3. This is "rage"? Or are these posts just upsetting you?

[Lampert]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

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.

I actually don't think any of what Walker said answers the points Urban Peasant made.
Of course the court is not going to take into account the mayor's political gain but even the point that the city can tweak the law isn't really that applicable here if the point is "can the city simply put extra financial burden purely based on geographic location?". As Urban Peasant said if the restaurateurs pay the fee none of the problems get fixed, the city is simply slightly richer.

I think the entire case could actually end up being quite interesting and with potential ramifications.
Like, if the city wins this, could the city decide to change property taxes based on the neighborhood? Isn't it kind of a similar thing?
To revitalize a certain area the property tax rate there is going to be half what it is in other areas.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by Lampert

I actually don't think any of what Walker said answers the points Urban Peasant made.
Of course the court is not going to take into account the mayor's political gain but even the point that the city can tweak the law isn't really that applicable here if the point is "can the city simply put extra financial burden purely based on geographic location?". As Urban Peasant said if the restaurateurs pay the fee none of the problems get fixed, the city is simply slightly richer.

I think the entire case could actually end up being quite interesting and with potential ramifications.
Like, if the city wins this, could the city decide to change property taxes based on the neighborhood? Isn't it kind of a similar thing?
To revitalize a certain area the property tax rate there is going to be half what it is in other areas.

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.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

The North End population has changed considerably in recent years and many new residents moved in. I know for sure the North End is no longer predominantly Italian and hardly any families live there now. The days of Christopher Columbus and Julie Billiart High Schools are long gone.

The demographics are certainly different. I doubt many of the restaurant owners live in the neighborhood anymore. The residential population has changed over time as well. It's one of the more expensive neighborhoods in the city and has some of the most affluent residents. In addition, it abuts the city center and has easy access to several rapid transit lines. It's not even remotely the same as some of the less affluent, further flung neighborhoods where residents have neither the access to downtown Boston (either on foot or by rapid transit), nor the means to make alternate parking arrangements. It's perfectly understandable that the outdoor dining program might look different in the North End vs., say, Mattapan.

These new residents probably do not share the same values as long time restaurant and business owners and are the ones complaining about traffic, loss of parking space, rodents, trash, and other problems they blame on the restaurants.

This may be true, but it's hard to have a ton of sympathy for these residents. The North End is one of the oldest, densest urban neighborhoods in the country. The commercial heart of the neighborhood has been extremely active since any of us have been alive, and it's been a prime Boston destination for residents and visitors alike since long before most people have lived there.

Adrian Walker said that there is nothing that gives restaurants the "right" to a portion of the street or sidewalk for tables. This is true. But there's nothing saying that residents have the "right" to those particular spaces either (or any space, for that matter). Their permits merely allow them to park in legal spaces in the neighborhood - there is not guarantee of specific spaces or even a certain number available. For either side to argue that they are entitled to that space is, well... entitlement.

The restaurant owners feel they are being singled out on account of the unique geographic layout of the North End. Many establishments have been there far longer than the newest residents and opine they have more rights to the neighborhood. Regardless, they feel they should not have to pay for something other restaurant owners get for free elsewhere.

Longevity in the neighborhood doesn't amount to "dibs" on city owned space. It does cost the city money to implement this program and in a neighborhood like the North End, the logistics present additional challenges. The city also loses revenue from meters that are no longer in use. The restaurants, on the other hand, gain capacity and the potential for extra revenue for nearly half of the year. It's perfectly reasonable to expect something from the restaurants in exchange for enabling this program in the neighborhood. But the $7,500 flat rate doesn't seem like the most equitable way to do this.

So it's multiple conflicts in one really and is testament to the ever changing city we live in. Now before anyone here in CDF accuses Mayor Wu of one-sided bias, bear in mind that the Mayor of Boston can only go so far as hearing the interests of the people she was elected to represent. If the majority of complainants are part of her constituency, she has to address those complaints in some way. Whether or not this was the right way is up for debate.

I don't disagree that it's reasonable for the city to expect restaurants to contribute something in order to participate in the outdoor dining program. But I don't think the $7,500 fee for just one neighborhood is the right way to do it.

[GeePee]

I find it funny that the main lure of this neighborhood that attracts people and makes it "desirable" is now under fire for it's desirability. This seems more like a class war. The more affluent the people who move in, the more they get to complain about how the neighborhood needs to change.
Wu should be bending over backwards to help business after the 2 years they have had. If the flock of new North Enders that didn't migrate to Truro for the summer months get inconvenienced by the very characteristics of said neighborhood, The good news is that there is a lot quieter and cheaper real estate out there.

[msRB311]

Many of the north end business owners are very wealthy themselves. They are not struggling restaurant owners.

I do think it’s ridiculous that anyone would move to the north end and complain about noise. Are they living right on Hanover st ? Most people aren’t. I can’t imagine that the noise ends up being that bad other then for the feast of st Anthony or something.

[GeePee]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Many of the north end business owners are very wealthy themselves. They are not struggling restaurant owners.

how many of them do you know?

[id77]

I haven't heard resident complaints about the noise. It's about chewing up limited sidewalk space, loss of parking, and narrower streets because of the barricades.

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2021/07/...n-restaurants/

"They are unhappy with crowded sidewalks, a lack of parking in the neighborhood and cramped streets."

[GeePee]

Originally Posted by id77

"They are unhappy with crowded sidewalks, a lack of parking in the neighborhood and cramped streets."

Yeah. I hate the water... so I don't move to the beach.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

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.

Read: Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain.