Finance Commission Recommends Wine/Beer, Opposes Liquor
More than 50 residents and town leaders attended tonight's Finance Commission public hearing on proposed articles for the special town meeting to be held October 21. After presentations and an hour and a half discussion by nearly everyone present, the commission unanimously recommended adopting Article 1 to authorize up to three licenses for off-premesis consumption of beer and wine. The comission voted 14-0 with one abstention to recommend indefinite postponement of the petition article to authorize two full liquor licenses.
In the video clip below (please forgive the unfortunate advertising; click the x to make it go away!), Selectman Pat Ahern summarizes the purpose of Article 1 and provides background on this story. The full recording of the meeting will be broadcast on Comcast cable channel 8 (Check back here for updated date/time.)
Currently, Article 18 from the spring town meeting--a home rule petition to grant a beer and wine license for the purpose of attracting Wegmans as an anchor tenant to Westwood Station--has been blocked in the state legislature by Readville Representative Scaccia out of loyalty to Roche Brothers supermarket. Mr. Ahern said that a deal had been worked out with the legislative leadership that if the board of selectmen unanimously supported this article, and if 2/3 of the Finance Commission recommended approval, Roche would drop his opposition to the home rule petition and the bill would be allowed to proceed.
Nearly everyone was upset with the political maneuvering on Beacon Hill to block the measure that had been approved at town meeting. But one resident noted, this is "an opportunity to correct a wrong that was done." Selectman Phil Shapiro noted that "the main discussion point of Town Meeting was fairness and I think this addresses that." Ahern described how prior to town meeting the selectmen had attempted to introduce an amendement to modify the original article which had been obviously and specifically crafted to apply only to Wegmans, but the town moderator had ruled such an amendment out of order, leaving no options at town meeting but to vote up or down on the article as it was then crafted.
A recurring theme of discussion, in addition to the fairness argument, was how the town should, "be careful and move judiciously slow," to take "baby steps" in the direction of increased openness to alcohol sales. This caution became a key sticking point in the discussion over Article 2.
David Feyler presented his petition for authorizing the town to grant 2 full liquor licenses in order from him to open a high-end store he would call "Westwood Wine and Cheese Gallery." He described his patent-pending invention to detect fake IDs and his willingness to work with anyone in town to train and improve public safety around preventing minors access to alcohol. He presented the article as an opportunity for potential merchants like himself to compete for the limited number of full liquor licenses that could be available.
But residents and FinComm members were concerned that whereas Article 1 was extremely limited and crafted to allow only grocery stores such as Roche Bros., the High Street Market, and Lamberts to be able to sell beer and wine, Article 2 simply authorized 2 package stores in town. Selectman Ahern clarified that this would only be the beginning of a process that would involve drafting rules and regulations that the town could make as restrictive as desired, limiting the size of establishments, the hours of operation, and any other criteria along with a comprehensive application and review process. But the first question to decide was whether the town wanted liquor stores at all.
After public discussion concluded, the commission members each offered their opinions and a clear consensus emerged--to recommend the grocery store licenses and reject the liquor stores. Some members and residents expressed skepticism and discomfort with the whole political "dealmaking" approach and wondered whether the town really had any assurance that Roche would keep his word or that Scaccia would follow through--since ultimately, Scaccia has no obligation to do anything here and no obvious interest in a settlement. But the selectmen reiterated they had Rick Roche's word and that what was being done now would have been better done at the original town meeting if it had been possible.
The next step in this process appears to be action by Representative Scaccia to remove his hold on the home rule petition. The Finance Commission will meet just prior to the special town meeting and several members and residents noted this would be a final opportunity to, if necessary, reconsider the article, but the hope is that the town has done its part, the unfairness issue inherant in drafting legislation designed to benefit only one company has been removed from the table, and all parties are ready to move on.
- other articles by Dave Atkins
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Comments
Petition articles
Jim Connors' intemperate and offensive remarks at the Fin Com meeting, as reported in the Transcript today, should make Rick Roche question whether he should continue to support anything in this town (although I am sure it won't). What was done last spring by two of the Selectmen (Mr. Ahearn voted "no") was the most arrogant and high-handed political manuever possible--proposing a "home rule" petition solely to benefit a single store that has not done business in Westwood and may never do so and then ramming it through town meeting by a narrow margin with scare tactics despite the fact that the town had repeatedly rejected off-premise sales in a series of town meeting and ballot votes. The fact that this highly engineered ploy was met by an equally political response should not have been a surprise. The fact that our Board of Selectmen engaged Mr. McMurty's assistance to block entirely unrelated business of the state because whether Wegman's gets a beer and wine license is the most burning issue in Massachusetts is equally appalling, if not absurd. Mr. Roche, on behalf of the residents of Westwood and so many other towns that have been the beneficiary of your company's generosity, please accept my apologies on behalf of the Town for Mr. Connors' completely inappropriate statements and for the original actions of two of the members of the the Board of Selectmen which created this situation.
Comcast TV Schedule
The Finance Commission Meeting from 9/22 will be broadcast on Comcast Public Access channel 8 at the following times:
Selectmen meetings are broadcast every Tuesday at 8pm.
School Committee meetings are broadcast every Wednesday at 8pm.
FinCom Comments in Paper Today
Thank you Dave for posting schedule for Fin Com meeting. I had to miss it but after reading the paper today, this looks like a meeting that needs to be watched. Mr. Connor's remarks concerning Rick Roche were out of line and totally unprofessional. If he was a man of character, he would write a letter to the editor and publicly apologize. I will not hold my breath for that to happen.
Rick Roche should be commended for making sure he and other businesses in town get equal treatment. It is not just about Roche Bros although Jim Connors clearly made Rick Roche the scapegoat. Instead, it is about fair treatment for other businesses in town. The town boards need to realize this town is more than just WESTWOOD STATION. There have been a lot of businesses making their living and serving the residents of Westwood for decades. Why should they be overlooked?
Hopefully the town will come out and support the businesss that are already in town, have hired their children, given money to their fundraisers, etc.
Petition articles
I whole-heartedly agree, Joanie. And to be fair to the Fin Com (at least as it was constituted last spring), people in town and the media seem to forget that the Fin Com was split almost 50/50 as to whether to support the initial warrant article for the one license. To have this type of split among the Fin Com members is virtually unheard of and simply reflected the fact that many people thought that the process being followed was very unfair. It is sad that it required Rep. Scaccia blocking patently unfair legislation to get the town leaders to remedy the situation. Had the measure sailed through the legislature as they originally planned, would the BOS and Fin Com have taken these actions to open up the process or was it only because their hand was forced???? In any event, for Mr. Connors to be making disrespectful comments about a business leader and citizen of Westwood who has supported every civic endeavor in this town (and many others) for decades is deplorable.
i was puzzled by connors
i was puzzled by connors remarks re roche bros. Just what was it that was "offensive" or "inappropriate" in roche seeking fair treatment? what i did find both offensive and inappropriate was the town design, minus ahearns vote, to grant one license designed to benefit one retailer. good for roche bros in not taking an ill-informed "no" as the final answer.
Petition Articles
I was not at the meeting last night so the only thing I know was what was reported in the newspaper. I'm confused by the apparent discrepency where one of the Selectmen says that the home rule petition will move forward if Town Meeting approves the measure but another comment seems to indicate that the deadlock at the State House could be resolved as early as Friday since both the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Commission support the article.
It also seems to be noted that there will be a meeting of the Finance Commission before the Special Town meeting where the vote could be reconsidered. I hope that this isn't like some previous Town Meetings where we see something different presented the night of the meeting than what people had expected to see.
quid pro quo
my understanding of the deal is this: if selectman uanimously supported Article 1 (done) and FinCom gave 2/3 support (done) then Rick Roche would drop his opposition to the home rule petition and Rep Scaccia would release his hold this week. Then, the two petitions are separate and Roche takes the risk that Town Meeting may still vote down this Article. Some people questioned what if Roche failed to deliver, what if the Wegmans bill is still blocked at the time of town meeting? A further meeting of FinCom, on the night of Town Meeting, could be used to reconsider the article and essentially revoke the deal. The hope and belief of all concerned is that such a maneuver will not happen.
Who is kidding who??
Jim Connors said what many of us in the Westwood community were thinking. Rick Roche and Roche Brothers have been on a mission that is clearly driven by their personal and financial concerns. It is about time someone had the courage to stand up and call it what it is. I am alarmed by the attempt of Roche Brothers to pit this town against each other as a way to further their cause. What I see is an organization that has minimal concern for those who have supported them for these many years. I would be more sensitive to their position if they aggresively pursued me as a continued customer. I am offended by their position that they have and are doing something for us, their customers??? They want to be the only option in town. I welcome competition. This will ensure a better product, for us all.
The Guest wants competition?
If you want competition you should be happy Roche stood up for himself and OTHER BUSINESSES IN TOWN. Lamberts and High Street Market have a lot to gain from this article. It is not just about Roche Bros. The way the article was originally written was to allow Wegmans to be the only one in town to sell alcohol. How the guest can think that is fair is a mystery to me.
What the guest should question is how the towns attitude town liquor has changed soo quickly in the past few years. The town stood up against Mr. Feyler at numerous town meetings and preached about how this was not what WESTWOOD wanted. Fast forward a couple years, now we want a store over 100,000 sq ft to have the only liquor license in town. Interesting. Just how big will the liquor area be? I have heard wonderful things about Wegmans, shopped there when I lived in New York, but have yet to see what is wrong with having a level playing field for all businesses in town.
packie vs grocery
It seems to me beer/wine at the grocery is night and day from a liquor store. I grew up in a small town in VA where beer and wine was everywhere, but liquor only at state stores. Kids got their beer from convenience stores, NEVER a grocery where you would have to stand in line and maybe run into your parents' neighbors.
50% or wait for 100%
The EDAB is looking into CH 138 and if the town should accept 138 or continue doing home rule petitions. The bottom line is as a resident you have the ability to keep the off premise licenses at 50% or wait for the EDAB to recommend all of Ch 138 and get the 100% plus the bars and taverns. The EDAB and BOS have not failed yet passing what they want or I should say what CCF wants. The political pull is there and the money to get it done. Accepting all of 138 will give CCF the ability to add the bars and Taverns to Westwood Station. The speach will be given that this has been a slow and steady process. This process has not been slow or steady, it has been about CCf and when they need something. 50% or 100% it's your choice
Think about it all the changes that have been made have been made to help CCF. Sooner or later you will see off premise full licenses. The question is are you going to restrict the number or wait for the acceptance of all of 138.
warrant articles
The way my warrant article is written is the way 99% of the on and off premise articles are written.
The BOS took writing a warrant article for off premise licenses to a whole new extreme and look where it got them.
Im sure the BOS could get a letter from ROCHE, LAMBERTS, HIGH STREET MARKET that their desire is for a beer and wine license and not a full.
My guess is that if article 2 passes you will see 2 MOM and POP operations open in the town.
Besides Univerity AVE and RT1 there are no large locations to put a large store.
Like I said in my last post KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE EDAB..... You may be looking at all of CH 138 in the near future which is almost double the number of off premise licenses not including bar and tavern licenses.
Galvin Doubts Quorum Again Today According to State House News
And the battle continues. Galvin doubted quorum again today which stops business for the day. So, bill 4832 was not addressed and is put on hold til Thursday. At the least... it is interesting.
Questions for CC&F
Does CC&F have any tenants other than Wegmans? Do they have Target? Do they have any restaurants lined up to take their 10 full liquor licenses? Will they not go vertical until they get $1.5 billion of financing? Has Commonfund pulled out? Does CC&F have a Plan B to proceed on a smaller scale? Do they have any money of their own to proceed on a smaller scale? Is CC&F paying any real estate taxes to Westwood? Looking at the progress of Legacy Place and Patriots Place, it seems all we have are many empty promises and big piles of dirt.