Olde Towne Tavern, formerly Charlie's Tavern
So last weekend's nightlife had its lighter moments, in spite of the obnoxious drain on AFD resources babysitting drunks at the Mullins Center Rusko concert, as usual, alcohol related.
According to APD logs (early Saturday morning 1:55 AM): "A group of college aged individuals approached me and asked where there was a legal place for the them to urinate. I advised them to ask the staff at The Sub to use their facilities. They did not ask at The Sub and proceeded to urinate at the old Charlie's Tavern. The three observed were identified and sent on their way."
Relieved no doubt.
Like The Pub, located next door, Charlie's opened its doors during the anything goes 1970s--happy hours, lower drinking age, smoking in bars, lax attitudes towards drunk driving--but weathered all the changing attitudes and regulations...until the spring of 2010, when Charlie's Tavern closed suddenly after a long run of thirty years.
Within months banners appeared announcing Olde Towne Tavern "Coming Soon." The Zoning Board approved a Special Permit last year to take up business where Charlie's left off, and the Select Board approved the all important $3,500 liquor license. Then, nothing.
The principals also own Stacker's and McMurphy's located uptown within staggering distance, so it's a safe bet they will indeed open for business; I'm told later this month or next, in time for St Patty's Day, the mother of all drinking holidays.
McMurphy's is infamous for its St Patty's Day "Kegs 'n Eggs" promotion--a Mardi Gras like atmosphere where the alcohol starts flowing at 10:00 AM, although the owner described the clientele as "an older crowd."
But hey, at least they have functioning bathrooms.
7 comments:
The Sub has a sign on their door stating that restrooms are for customers only. I don't believe this is legal in MA, but it could easily have kept the three from venturing inside to ask.
As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about excessive urinators. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. Back when our policemen were guardians, not enforcers, they would have protected us from excessive urinators's Praetorian Guard. Today, it seems that most officers of the law are content to sit back and let excessive urinators build a totalitarian death machine. That's why we must make it pay for its crimes against humanity.
I don't buy excessive urinators's worn-out argument that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. The same holds true for witless, incomprehensible geeks. Excessive urinators's patsies think that excessive urinators can succeed without trying. This is precisely the non-equation that excessive urinators is trying to patch together. What it's missing, as usual, is that it believes that it is everyone's obligation to generate alienation and withdrawal. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.
It's debatable whether excessive urinators has studiously avoided being contaminated by the facts. However, no one can disagree that I'm convinced that it will condone universal oppression some day. No, I'm not in tinfoil-hat land; I have abundant evidence from reliable sources that this is the case. For instance, there's something I've observed about excessive urinators. Namely, it may not know how to spell "roentgenographic", but it unmistakably knows how to instill a general ennui. I've further observed that excessive urinators's speeches tend to be more phatic than illustrative. And I can say that with a clear conscience because if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will doubtlessly find that excessive urinators has been retaining an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that I don't care what others say about excessive urinators. It's still warped, insidious, and it intends to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought. Now that I've told you what I think, let me end this letter by stating that I, not being one of the many censorious Neanderthals of this world, fully intend to put excessive urinators in its place. Let excessive urinators tremble. And though the heavens fall, let there be justice.
Um, thanks for contributing, I think. How many cups of coffee did you have?
Time for some meds there, Colton.
Of course, if you are to have a functioning ("family friendly") downtown -- or even a "female friendly" downtown -- you really have to have public restrooms.
Clean, well designated, and in a safe location. Because of homosexual activities (lets be accurate, that is what did it) the public restroom has gone the way of the payphone. Fine, I can carry a cellphone, it is the toilet that doesn't quite fit onto my belt...
It was a small segment of the gay community, but perhaps if the larger Gay & Etc community made it clear that THEY wanted to be able to have and use toilets for the purposes they were intended, we would have (a) less homophobia and (b) public toilets.
"Mommy, Mommy, I have to...."
You want a child friendly downtown -- you want anything other than a WalMart (which has plenty of toilets)) -- you need public toilets. And you need to pay for them. And having one in Town Hall that no one knows about doesn't count...
Restraint of trade. I think there is a need of an ordinance that you can only have ONE liquor license in town.
The Bar-Crawl business is essentially fixed (and dependent on the economy, which is bad). So why spread that business amongst three establishmetns when you can get almost as much in two? All you gota do is hold onto the liquor license so that no one else can use it, and you are golden.
I love Amherst (NOT)....
Studies have shown that "homosexual activity" in public restrooms as a previous poster described, is, in fact, perpetrated by individuals who identify as straight. One only need to look back in the newsprint at all of the Republican scandals involving "toe tapping"....so I would say the target is not the gay community, but the "straight" men who frequent bathrooms for things other than nature's call.
Post a Comment