Hey, there! Log in / Register
Old owner of Beacon Hill bar agreed to close at midnight, but new owner wants court to toss that now that Boston is the City that Is Trying to Stay Awake Longer
By adamg on Mon, 04/24/2023 - 12:27pm
The owner of the former Beacon Hill Pub on Charles Street is asking a judge to throw out a "neighbor agreement" that currently mandates that any bar there close by midnight, now that Boston has a nightlife czar charged with increasing late-night opportunities for denizens thirsty for adult beverages.
The request actually comes in a countersuit in Suffolk Superior Court against the owners of the neighboring building, 151 Charles St. The Dutch investment firm that owns that building sued 147 Charles owner Ty Gupta in February, alleging that Gupta's contractors did un-permitted digging in the basement, causing their building to begin to tilt enough to force them to evacuate the tenants that had already not moved out because of growing structural problems, such as doors and windows that no longer closed.
In his counter-complaint, Gupta charges 151 Charles was already falling apart before he bought 147 Charles and that, in fact, 151 is now a menace to his building.
But in addition to seeking a jury trial at which he can prove the owners of that building need to leave him alone and tend to their own building, Gupta also wants a court declaration that an agreement signed by the building's previous owners - a bar-purchasing group headed by the principals of City Realty - that limited any bar's hours is unenforceable, because it was never approved by the Boston Licensing Board, which has ultimate say over restaurant and bar hours in the city.
In fact, on March 3, 2022, the licensing board voted to approve Gupta's purchase of the former pub's liquor license with a 2 a.m. closing time, although it has yet to hold a hearing on any specific plans by Gupta to re-open the pub as a swankier establishment more in keeping with what people might expect from an establishment on Charles Street. Still, Gupta doesn't want to be bound by the midnight closing time:
Mayor Michelle Wu recently appointed a nightlife "czar" to reinvigorate the City of Boston's nightlife scene, including by extending the hours of operation of the City's bars and restaurants.
By prohibiting the operation of a bar or restaurant on the 149 Charles Street property after 12:00 a.m., the Neighborhood Agreement directly contravenes the public policy of the City as repeatedly expressed by Mayor Wu that Boston should have an exciting night life, including in particular that the holder of a license granted by the Licensing Board be permitted to operate under the full terms thereunder.
This is not the only property battle Gupta is fighting in court.
In February, he sued the city of Newton over fines and stop-work orders it issued related to a decaying but historic house he began to tear down there. Newton this month had the case "removed" to federal court in Boston because Gupta raised several constitutional issues, in addition to calling the mayor and other city officials gangsters and decrying the alleged actions of "a roving angry mob of Newtonites."
2022 Beacon Hill Pub license transfer hearing:
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 149 Charles counter-complaint | 441.96 KB |
| Newton complaint | 383.5 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
But don't you realized the
But don't you realized the reason by Boston is so smahhhht is because we're getting enough sleep at night?
Interesting to see what happens
It will be interesting to see what happens to this case. The Mayor has come up with a number of interesting ideas and has formed various new departments regarding night life, small business, community engagement, and similar.
However, none of these new departments have any management authority or sway over any other city department to bring about actual change to policy and procedure, some of which is codified in various regulations.
Sounded great on paper, but there is no administrative power to make change with these new departments, commissions, and coffee-clutches.
It would be nice if they did.
At least in terms of hours
Yes, a lot of it centers on the licensing board, which for the past couple of years has, in fact, shown a willingness to allow places to stay up later than under previous administrations (so credit not just Wu but Walsh, who appointed the current members).
I'm no fan of annoying
I'm no fan of annoying neighborhood restrictions. But the whole point of a private agreement is to be more strict than the city's rules. If they followed the standard legal procedures when making the agreement, and it's supposed to be binding on future owners of the property, and the existence of the agreement was available to the new owner, then the new owner has no business fighting it.
Go back to NYC if you think Boston is too sleepy
So sick of these same articles. I think what people can't understand is that Boston isn't a 24 hour party city like LA, Miami, NYC or Vegas. If you don't like it that the city shuts down by 1am too bad. As a born, bred Bostonian (40years) could care less about the night life, night clubs or drinking at bars. Even when I was in my 20s I rarely went out in the city yet I still live and grew up in the city. I would rather be home, safe in bed saving my money by watching TV, eating chips and drinking a soda then going out every weekend binge drinking, getting drunk or stuck with some perve puking on me or worse trying to get into my pants. Its bad for your health, it's unsafe and why keep splurging your money stupidly. Just why? Yet people keep complaining about high rents but are out wasting their money on processed food and liquor every weekend.
You must be real fun at parties
You've lived in Boston for decades and think last call is 1am? Sounds fishy.
No one's asking for Vegas but I mean come on, friggin Albany and Buffalo are open until 4am!! Just because you like eating chips (unhealthy?) on a Saturday night doesn't mean all of us should be restricted to that lifestyle.
I bet you're fun at parties
Oh wait...
Staying out late: it's not for everybody. But
one of the reasons I live in the city is the ability to get out and about and not have to call it a night at 11pm. It's not about a "party lifestyle", but I have friends that work late, and I often work late, too. If I wanted to get to bed at a sensible hour every night, I'd move to the suburbs or the countryside.
For someone who apparently prides themselves on their common sense, frugality, and healthy habits, and appears to loathe the company of strangers, I have to ask: why do you bother to pay city housing costs if all you do is stay at home, eat and drink only healthy, unprocessed foods -- like soda and chips, ahem -- and retire early? You could do that outside of the city for a lot less money, plus it's easier to avoid those annoying other people.
Just to belabor the obvious....
Just to belabor the obvious, the question at hand is not "should bars stay open later?". it is "should property owners be able to repudiate agreements that were duly negotiated, signed, and recorded on the deed?"