Hey, there! Log in / Register
Cleveland Circle losing 24-hour donuts, coffee
By adamg on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 11:02am
The Dunkin' Donuts on Beacon Street, next to Mary Ann's, is changing its hours from 24 hours a day to 4:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. The Boston Licensing Board considers the license change on Thursday.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
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
reason?
Any reason why?
Usually its the reverse.. people wanting to stay open later?
Would it have to do with that DD's neighbor?
Why does a restaurant even
Why does a restaurant even need permission to reduce its hours?
Because ...
It's modifying a condition on its license, which was issued by the board.
In this particular case, though, don't worry, it's not even subject to a public hearing where the applicant and his lawyer has to show up, elected officials and the public can give testimony, etc. (although the meeting at which the change is rubber-stamped is open to the public).
More idiocy
from that pointless bureauracy called the Licensing Board. Business wants to reduce their hours, so they need to get government permission to do so. Makes perfect sense - not!
Got to love the waste of manhours and the taxpayer's money involved with "necessary" decisions like this one.
Yes, but
My guess is that they are concerned that if they switch to non-24 hours, they lose their ability to go BACK to 24/7 in the future. I can easily imagine that they would have to fight to once again get permission to be open all night. I bet they are going to the board to be allowed to not use their all night permit, but to keep it active in case they choose to resume staying open.
No, they're not
Sorry if I left the whole thing too vague in my exhaustive two-sentence post.
Although the board does hold formal public hearings at which the public can attend to give witness, elected officials can pontificate about how wonderful the applicant is (always on Wednesday), this is not one of those. This is a pro-forma thing (always on Thursday) where nobody's expected to show up (although you totally can - it's a public meeting), the board doesn't ask any questions, they basically just approve the thing. It's really more of a paperwork thing to issue a new license to the place that reflects the new hours (since hours are required to be listed on the license).
This does get us to one of those seemingly ridiculous parts of restaurant licensing in Boston, however: A place can be cited, which would require a public hearing (always on Tuesday) for NOT fulfilling a condition of its license. Tons of bars with food-serving licenses have been cited for not offering food over the past couple of years. Why anybody cares, given that there's no limit on the number of food-service licenses (unlike liquor licenses), I have no clue, except that IT'S THE LAW and so while nobody's gotten fined for doing this, they do have to show up at City Hall and, if they're worried enough, hire a lawyer to show up with them.
I suspect that's what's going on here: The license holder is seeking a license amendment to avoid one of those cases where somebody from the licensing division or a patrol supervisor from D-14 shows up one morning at 3 a.m., notices the place is closed and issues a violation (and I specify patrol supervisor because patrol officers can't issue these citations; has to be a sergeant or above).
FYI
This DD has been closing at 11pm for most of the last year, if not longer.
Assuming this is the case
then please explain why this requires a formal hearing?
No idea.
This DD has gone back and forth with the 24 hour option as far back as I remember (almost 40 years). It had just gone back to a 24 hour store about 5 years ago, and that lasted about 4 years.
I thought there were laws
I thought there were laws that certain types of liquor licenses required selling food. There's some (debatable) justification for that -- it changes the nature of the place and its clientele, and they taught us in health class that drinking on an empty stomach is bad.
But requiring a restaurant to stay open all the hours its license allows? Why would anyone think this is worth the city's effort?
Classic bureacratic nonsense
that the Licensing Board is famous for.
A business is granted permission to operate 24/7, but decides not to. So we recind their ability to operate 24/7 because "they're not using it"?
Didin't realize there was a strict quota on business 'open 24 hours a day" permits in this state.
It's a signal that people
It's a signal that people aren't running on Dunkin quite as much as Dunkin wi$hes.
I prefer getting a coffee at
I prefer getting a coffee at McDonald's.