Well, that’s not the best headline ever, but it works.
The Boston Foundation released a report today titled, “Boston Bound: A Comparison of Boston’s Legal Powers with Those of Six Other Major American Cities”.
I haven’t read past the table of contents, yet, but I’m intrigued by the topic. I’ll get back to you on what I think, after I’ve read it (meaning, after other people have written about it so I can steal their ideas), but in the meantime, I encourage you to take a look.
From what I gather, the conclusion drawn by the report’s authors is nothing new – basically, that the city is at a disadvantage to other major US cities because of laws and regulations set by our state government.
Again, I haven’t read the report, but I can give you one simple example of what I think they are saying.
The city has a set number of liquor licenses. The state actually controls the number of licenses. The number of licenses has been the same since … I don’t know, 1950? The city would like to have more liquor licenses. As it stands now, due to the inequity between supply and demand, buying a full liquor license from an existing business will run you $100,000, if not more.
Now, it’s a fact that the city has less residents than it did in 1950 (I think it’s a fact), so maybe we don’t need more liquor licenses, but maybe the city should be able to decide that, not some state committee run by some guy in Quincy.
There are better examples in the TBF report, I’m sure.