Boston might be about to get a lot more interesting: in a Wednesday City Council hearing, City Councilors Michelle Wu and Stephen Murphy introduced a proposal that would allow restaurant patrons to bring their own bottle of alcohol — likely beer or wine — to small restaurants.
Several cities across the United States, including Philadelphia and Chicago, have seen great success with the movement. In Massachusetts, the BYOB phenomenon has been confined to Brookline. In the proposal, Wu and Murphy write that the initiative would “let patrons enjoy their dining experience with their own selection of wine and drink at certain restaurants, encouraging residents and visitors to dine out due to greater options and a better consumer experience.”
Because Boston has a strict limitation on the amount of liquor licenses it gives out, Charles Perkins, president of The Boston Restaurant Group, told The Daily Free Press Wednesday that those that are able to obtain them have a distinct advantage over competitors. Obtaining a liquor license in Boston is exorbitantly expensive, costing $375,000 for a full bar.
“In Boston, Harvard Square and Cambridge, a liquor license has value,” Perkins said. “[This] city only gives out 75 licenses over three years, 25 a year for three years. Whereas in a place like New York City, where there’s 25,000 licenses, the cap hardly matters. There’s no charge for it. You just pay your annual renewal fee.”
Enacting BYOB in Boston would be “offering more flexibility in business models and alleviating some of the disadvantage from scarce liquor licenses,” the proposal stated.
However, no measure is without its opponents. The BYOB idea could gain some resistance from restaurant owners who have already made the $375,000 investment, as expressed by City Council President Bill Linehan in the meeting, The Boston Globe reported.
In addition, City Councilor Ayanna Pressley, who has been in support of giving more Boston restaurants liquor licenses due to the economic boost it would provide, spoke out against the proposal on Wednesday and cited a new point. BYOB could create a class separation of sorts, where restaurants in more affluent neighborhoods would have liquor licenses and BYOB would be confined to underprivileged neighborhoods. She also stated concerns that BYOB would lower the cost of dining and reduce the amount of tips.
Before the measure can be passed, it must be referred to the Government Operations Committee and discussed in a public hearing. It would then go to the Boston Licensing Board, which is controlled by Boston Mayor Martin Walsh and creates rules for establishments that serve liquor. But Walsh has to sign the measure before it gets anywhere. In the past, Walsh has showed some skepticism, but understands how big of a deal this would be for Boston.
“It could be a game changer in the way we do business in Boston,” Walsh said in an interview with the Globe. “We want to look at it, but I know for a fact I am not interested in opening it up across the board in the city of Boston. We have a lot of restaurant and bar owners who invest heavily in the liquor licenses for their premises.”
But maybe Walsh’s concern, which is the main concern of the opposition, is not necessarily valid. Restaurant patrons who want a nice meal are still going to prefer places that have liquor licenses and can give them the full experience. It’s a huge pull revenue-wise if you have a liquor license and can sell alcohol to people. Enacting BYOB laws would not necessarily create competition with restaurants that already have liquor licenses simply due to the convenience of going to a place where you don’t have to, well, BYOB.
There is already a class divide, especially in cities and especially in Boston — there are nice restaurants and then there are not-as-nice ones. People who can afford to dine at the nicer restaurants know that they don’t have to bring their own alcohol. BYOB not only appeals to the citizens of Boston who can’t or don’t want to go to the more expensive restaurants. It appeals to college students. Bringing a bottle of cheap wine to a restaurant and not spending the extra money it would take to buy a bottle at the restaurant could help college students cut corners. And Boston is a city loaded with college students.
Another great perk of enacting BYOB for restaurants is helping Boston become a more vibrant city. There are slow but steady movements toward Boston staying open later — the experimental late-night T service is being extended until June, The Daily Free Press reported, and making Boston a city with competitive nightlife is something that Walsh has said is a priority of his. Allowing BYOB would be the next step in this, not just letting businesses with liquor licenses stay open later, but letting everyone stay out later. When people stay out later, they spend more — just ask college students.
Just a small correction on Perkins’ comment stating that Cambridge liquor licenses have value. Although there are still some “for value” licenses in Cambridge, there have not been any new ones issued since the early 1980s when Cambridge’s quota was lifted. Since then only “no value, non-transferable” licenses have been issued. Although it couldn’t hurt, this makes the subject of BYOB not as critical to businesses in Cambridge as it is in cities like Boston where there is a quota.