The city of Boston is moving closer to allowing restaurant-goers to BYOB “bring your own bottle” to some restaurants without liquor licenses. Should Newton?
Should Newton allow BYOB in restaurants?
by Greg Reibman | Apr 30, 2016 | Newton | 30 comments
Yes, totally!
YES!
YES! The government has no business restricting things like this.
I’m advocating for it.
We should be doing all we can to support our local businesses. People like to have a glass of wine or a beer with their meal.
One area restaurant had even suggested that 1/4 of all corking fees charged go to help make improvements and betterments in their village/neighborhoods.
Well, duh.
I was also happy to support a wine and beer license for Judith’s Kitchen in West Newton, where you can buy really good dinners to go and wine or beer to complement your meal.
Of course. Let’s go on step further. Why not allow ALL restaurants to allow BYOB? Let’s leave consenting adults alone.
Here’s two things to think about before you’re sure that this is a good idea.
1. BYOB restaurants could harm existing restaurants that have invested significantly in a liquor license, liability insurance, staff training etc. Could this result in some Newton restaurants that we all adore in closing, or layoffing staff, etc.? We couldn’t know for sure, but it’s possible.
2. Restaurants that serve alcohol are required to have trained tip-certified staff that know how to recognize when someone has had too much; when and how to cut them off; and what to do if they refuse. Will BYOB restaurant’s staff have the same skills?
@Jeffrey and Mike: I get the concept that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want, but tell that to someone who has lost a friend or family member to a drunk driver.
All fair points, Greg. I know it’s out-of-fashion in post 9-11 America, but I always put freedom first. There’s certainly no excuse for anyone who abuses that freedom by driving intoxicated and endangering other people.
@Greg – I would have more sympathy with your first point if liquor licenses weren’t rationed. IMO, any restaurant willing to meet requirements such as liability insurance and staff training, etc. should be allowed to have a liquor license. Until that happens, I don’t think it’s right to punish restaurants that are unable to get licenses purely because there are a none available at the time they need them.
As to your second point, I would have no problem with requiring restaurants that are allowed to have BYOB to have the same liability insurance and staff training requirements as those who have a liquor license.
If I am not mistaken Newton presently has licenses available. In other words anyone who applies and qualifies can get a license now.
Greg, as noted in the article you linked to, the licensing commission has the authority to approve BYOB as well as strict regulations for implementing it. I am confident that Newton’s licensing commission could do the same.
@Greg
Re: the business impact. Restaurants without liquor licenses would make money on corking fees, and would probably would offset the negative impact you highlight above.
Net-net– liquor licenses add a bureaucratic inefficiency to the system. There may be reasons for having it in place, but jobs is probably not one of them.
On the “responsible alcohol” argument– is there any data whatsoever that supports your argument on the impact of “trained” staff?
I was referring to restaurants that have invested heavily in liquor licenses losing businesses. And when businesses close we don’t only lose village vitality and taxes, people lose jobs.
I presume there is data that shows the value of trained bartenders, feel free to look. Or ask someone who has lost a loved one to a drunk driver if they care about the data.
Yep liquor licensing is bureaucratic but it’s a bureaucracy worth keeping.
Greg,
BYOB licenses should be available, but in practice, will never be common. Allowing alcohol use on the premises means that liability insurance costs increase for the BYOB restaurant without the alcohol income that a full license allows. The exposure isn’t worth the corkage fee for most establishments, to say nothing of other restrictions that may be put on them (TIPS certification, etc.). I have spoken to many local establishments about the issue and those with full licenses don’t fear it (when speaking candidly) and those that may take advantage of the BYOB are ambivalent due to the increased responsibility and cost. There are a few establishments where it can work, and where it will add to the dining experience, and where it should be allowed.
Also, I want to be clear that I’m not necessarily opposed to this. The points I’ve been raising were only intended to illustrate that this is more complex than people might first believe.
@Greg
I understand your point, but allowing BYOB makes it lower cost for other and new restaurants to collect alcohol-related revenues from corking fees, which increases jobs for those restaurants.
Generally, creating government imposed fees and regulations are not job-creating. In this case, liquor licenses are not about creating jobs.
You’re just wrong on that point.
Everything Paul says is correct, so I won’t repeat.
We should have never had liquor licenses to begin with. The decision of a restaurant to serve wine is a decision that is best left between the restaurant, its customers, and its insurance company. I have absolutely positively no confidence that a government mandated tips program does anything. Data probably does not exist on this. On the other hand, I think an insurance company that is on the hook might have something more effective, and I bet they actually look at data to figure out if it is worth it.
Now that we have these liquor licenses, do we really want to eliminate competition at the customer’s expense to maintain the value of the licenses? My answer is “no,” just like my answer to whether or not we should protect taxi-medallion prices against ride-share competition is “no.” BTW, if we really want to cut down on drunk driving (in a proven way), let’s be friendly to ride-sharing.
I love wine and food. I moved to Massachusetts from Washington State about 13 years ago. In Washington State almost all restaurants allow corkage. MA has been a big disappointment. In Washington I would regularly go to restaurants with friends where we would share interesting wines from our cellars. In MA, even if I was willing to pay the steep restaurant markup, no restaurant could put together a wine list that matches hand-chosen selections from 10 different individuals’ wine cellars. Of course, mark-ups do matter. I can’t fathom paying a restaurant $200+ for a bottle of wine that I purchased for $60. As such, I usually stick to one of the least expensive wines on the menu, or I stay home. Both decisions end up hurting the restaurant industry. I don’t think I am alone.
By the way, over the last 6 months, with great effort and research, I went to at least 3 MA restaurants (none in Newton), ONLY because they would allow me and some friends bring wine.
Jeffrey,
Two BYOB’s close to Newton where I enjoy sharing good bottles are Sweet Basil in Needham and Dumpling Daughter (very casual, limited, Asian) in Weston.
Any places you’d like to recommend?
Sorry Greg, but this is what happens; customers vote with their feet. Let the restaurants decide what makes sense for their customers and get government out of the way. Make it easier for fans of BYOB to stay in Newton.
Don’t apologize. I’m all in favor of folks eating in Needham!
Terry,
Thanks. I have tried Sweet Basil. I will try Dumpling Daughter. Hopefully ,Newton will catch up.
June, the extremely friendly lady with the pink Red Sox hat who used to work at the No. 1 Noodle House is now at Dumpling Daughter. Reason enough for a road trip.
Thanks for the tip, Greg! I’ve missed her. Now, to find out where this place is called Weston…
Having been both a bartender and bouncer, I think BYOB is a fine thing, but I would want the restaurants to have a server with the typical training. Getting certified is easy to do. The training is effective in making sure the server understands the amounts of alcohol connected to impairment. A lot of this is judgement calls on behalf of the server or the bouncer. After a few months you can recognize the signs of impairment with some degree of certainty. And you can gently suggest other modes of transport. Or that maybe you shouldn’t go for that walk in negative 10 degree weather…
Terry is 100% correct on the reasons why this won’t be widespread.
As for why liquor licenses are needed, Jeffrey, I think you need to visit some different bars. Finer establishments view alcohol as part of the dining experience. A lot of bars are just alcohol delivery systems, and focus on the youthful client section. Pack em in and pack em full. And send them stumbling off.
But even WA has a liquor licenses. Having insurance deal with the problem doesn’t work for lots of reasons, not the least of which bar owners fear being put in jail far more than they worry about being sued. Insurance covers risk, but it doesn’t negate potential harm. Sometimes governmental regulation serves a valid and important service.
Huh. Fignewtonville was a bouncer! Not quite what I pictured over many years of anonymous interaction.
Fig, I’m also a former bartender and bouncer (and currently TIPs certified) and I think we should make sure that we doublecheck Reibman’s I.D. at the next Blogger’s Ball and bounce him out on his tush on principle, the guy is a troublemaker.
Realistically, I know that getting rid of liquor licenses will never ever happen. That being said, if you want to see the dark side of local government, Google, “liquor license corruption bribe” Liquor licenses (and zoning!) have always been a ripe area for abuse.
I can’t imagine the prices for food at such restaurants wouldn’t gradually become higher than at those providing full bar service, since that is where the profit margins are.So if the concept is to save money via BYOB, I think one will be disappointed.
If it’s all about having exactly the drink you want, that’s a different story.
Greg, I’ve done a lot of jobs over the years. Also, I didn’t say I was a GOOD bouncer. More like the friendly “let’s try and calm it down folks before the much larger bouncer comes over and throws you out” type. A lot of larger bars use a good cop/bad cap type of approach, especially with folks in their 20s. Bouncers that actually bounce folks physically are bad for business.
I do think working in a bar is a good place for people watching, and to study human nature. I enjoyed being a bartender and was much better at that. But bars need to be regulated just like cigarettes and package stores need regulation.
But both bartenders and bouncers need training, and it does make a difference. Did you know that men and women process alcohol differently? That 2 drinks in quick succession is enough to pull a 0.08 on a breathalizer for many women, 3 drinks for guys?
Jeffrey, you seem to be saying that because some liquor licenses are awarded fraudalently (which I’m sure they are) that this has some bearing on the effectiveness on the regulatory state of the restaurant/bar business. Apples and oranges. Every bar owner fears losing their liquor license. They fear the fines, they fear the suspension and they fear their business shutting down. No one ever mentioned liability insurance to me. If bar owners feared liability, they’d hire smarter bouncers that didn’t seek to start fights, they’d serve more food, they’d pack less folks in the bar, they’d watch out for patrons on extremely cold days, they’d install camaras at the front, back, and near the bar without being forced to do so. Bar owners would pack the place past the fire code if they thought it would make them an extra $1000 at the end of the night.
But your point regarding the crooked nature of bar regulatory enforcement is not wrong. It is not a coincidence that bars tend to know when to really card their underage patrons, and when they can be looser with the rules. But just because the system is not 100% on the level doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.
And Terry, haven’t you heard that the pen is mightier than the sword? Or the bounce?
That said, he is a total troublemaker. So there’s that.
Regarding BYOB, and with apologies to the Untouchables and Elliot Ness:
“What will I do if Newton permits BYOB?
I think I’ll have a drink.”
Cheers to all.
If I may have a say in this. I actually own a restaurant that doesn’t have a liquor license, and is supporting the BYOB proposal. If some are concerned about how will the establishments with a full liquor license survive after a couple of small restaurants will allow their patrons to Bring their own bottle, I believe then we should say that those guys weren’t really doing that well anyway. As another point, I’m a small restaurant, without a license, and every single customers asks if they can bring their own, and many others turn around and leave just because of that, and if the city will not approve BYOB to places like mine, I may end up closing down myself, but I guess nobody will care right? Doesn’t sound really fair. Competition is always a useful thing, and the main thing is that the customer’s preference should be a priority. We all work very hard to keep our restaurants open, and all of use should have a chance to succeed.
I believe that BYOB can be regulated just like any other liquor license. I am more then happy to have my staff TIP certified, and follow all procedure in taking care of drinking patrons. We want them to be safe as much as any other establishment. A BYOB restaurant would actually pay a higher insurance then places with full licenses, yet I would be ok with that if it would retain my existing customers, and attract new ones. Bottom line is that I think that the BYOB can be regulated exactly the same way that any other place that serves liquor, the only difference would be to simply have customers bring the bottle instead. Most importantly, the PUBLIC wants this more then the restaurant owners.
Good thing we have pretty good food, and our guests are happy and supportive, and that keeps us going, but we do hope BYOB will get approved.