Smoke Clearing?
By Jim Conley • Feb 20th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
As an update to an earlier post (see post), Town Administrator Richard Kelliher says that Brookline PD has the case of a highly publicized DWI and a connection to the Village Smokehouse (relative to their liquor license) “under review.”
I guess that’s progress.
There seem to be an awful lot of things “under review” down at the big box on Washington Street. The 15 month review by Building Commissioner James Nickerson on whether to enforce an order rescinding a building permit at 71 Spooner Road comes to mind (see previous post).
The fact that the Brookline Police Chief and the Building Commissioner owe their appointments, and report to, the corporate attorney for the Smokehouse and the developers at Spooner Road - Selectman’s Chair Robert L. Allen, Jr. - likely has no effect on the pace of these reviews.
Just being thorough, I suspect. Like when the Selectmen moved to put a store out of business on charges stemming from a Brookline PD sting last month. I remember hearing of no pity and tough luck from the Board. Let’s see how rough the talk gets if the Smokehouse matter comes before them. A big if, mind you.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
Let that be a lesson to anyone in the liquor business in Brookline. When the Selectmen come asking for campaign contributions, give generously — or else.
Speaking of cost/benefit studies (which I do from time to time to time to time), I wonder what such a study would reveal of the time spent by our five Selectmen at their once a week meetings on liquor licenses as compared to, say, basic economic problems facing our community? While there are benefits to our Town and protection for our underage youth of strict enforcement of liquor laws, should the Selectmen with their limited time be so involved? Perhaps such a cost/benefit study could include the impact, if any, upon political campaigns, political careers and campaign contributions as well, with such enforcement involvement of the Selectmen. Now if Brookline changed from Representative Town Meeting to a city form of governance, a mayor or city manager would not be spending her time (I choose not to run nor serve if elected) on such matters. I’ll drink to that!
We’ve all learned since the infamous DPW grant application for the Carlton Street Bridge, where then-Selectman Michael Sher asked for an “investigation” into apparently false claims made in the application, that an “investigation” is a serious matter, requiring a decisive outcome after using rigorous methodology.
The DPW’s questionable grant application stayed at the level of “review”, never graduating to “investigation” category.
And we know what happened to that. Nada.
[...] We’ll have more on this on Monday. In the meantime, it’s not clear that the Brookline Police have made any moves to revoke the store’s license (as they did for a Harvard St. shop earlier this year). And just like with the feet dragging in the case of an incident at the Village Smokehouse (see previous post). Then again, the owner of the Harvard St. building never hung a sign out front saying: “We support our department heads”; as did the owner of the building in the area of Harvard and Washington Streets. [...]
[...] We’ll have more on this on Monday. In the meantime, it’s not clear that the Brookline Police have made any moves to revoke the store’s license (as they did for a Harvard St. shop earlier this year) [updated below]. And just like with the feet dragging in the case of an incident at the Village Smokehouse (see previous post). [...]