Friday, February 27, 2015

Blarney: There They Go Again

Frozen tundra?  Nah, Townhouse apartments:  Ground Zero for bad Blarney

Once again my friends at the Gazette do a front page above the fold story on why Blarney Blowout is going to fizzle and neglect to mention the #1 reason, weather.

For the past two years the downtown bars have not played any role whatsoever in Blarney going bad.

If I were the Select Board, however, I would still pull their liquor permits for Saturday, March 7 just as retroactive punishment for creating the monster they unleashed, and now have no control over.

Start shoveling kids!


Anonymous said...

"For the past two years the downtown bars have not played any role whatsoever in Blarney going bad."

"I would still pull their liquor permits as punishment for creating the monster they unleashed"

So which is it, Larry? They did or they didn't.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say they had nothing to do with blarney going bad. I don't think it's normal to have young people drunk and puking downtown. Before noon.

Larry Kelley said...

That didn't happen in the last two years.

B.B. N.A. said...

It's hard to find content between the deflections.

Larry, your last response was a blogger's response.

Can you please now provide the humble reporter response and answer the first poster's question?

Also why do you blame the bars and not the group that clearly unleashed the little riotous losers on the community.....the low quality parents of the commonwealth. To blame the bars before the failed parents seems off. That is like blaming the road for the wheel falling off when it was the mechanic that did not tighten the nuts.

Dr. Ed said...

...pull their liquor permits for Saturday, March 7 just as retroactive punishment..."

Is Larry familiar with Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution?

You know, that line that says: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Retroactive punishment is one of the things that the folks who wrote the Constitution specifically wanted to explicitly prohibit, and as John Adams wrote both documents, I strongly suspect that there is something in the Massachusetts Constitution with similar intent.

Retroactive punishment is not only arbitrary & capricious but something that has a very chilling effect on things like free speech. Men like Adams had just fought a war over this and they didn't want it happening again.

And then you want to retroactively punish all the bars for the actions of only two of them?!?!?

How, exactly, is that not a violation of the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses of the 14th Amendment, not to mention every basic concept of basic fairness?!?!?!?

Basic fairness along the lines of the Willie Horton issue and the prejudicial view that Horton is anything other than an outlier?

A while back, the MSP had a trooper who was both dealing and using drugs. High as a kite, he crashed into another police car, memory is that there were some injuries involved.

The MSP was, understandably, not happy about this - but they didn't fire all the State Troopers -- they only fired him -- the individual.

This is not a minor point Larry.

Anonymous said...

"If I were the Select Board, however, I would still pull their liquor permits"

Were this to happen and I were a bar owner, my response would be to get a Select Board more favorable to me. If I wanted to play "hardball", I'd get a few friendly candidates running and then offer incentives for my patrons to vote for them.

Larry Kelley said...

That may be Ed. After all, you're the expert.

I guess what I'm saying is Stephanie O'Keeffe made a major blunder back three years ago when the first Blarney Blowout got completely out of control in town center as a direct result of McMurphy's Uptown Tavern and Stackers Pub.

They should have pulled their permits there and then.

Anonymous said...

I think town center may be a problem this year because UMass is not allowing non-students to park or stay overnight. So where will they go to party especially with bars/liquor stores open? It's like playing "wack a mole" just move the problem around but never eliminate it unless you shut things down completely.

Dr. Ed said...

"They should have pulled their permits there and then."

Perhaps they shouldn't have been issued in the first place -- although that would have a significant impact on both your taxbase and on the ability of whomever owns those buildings to make money.

The latter could (and likely would) be construed as a "taking" and could cost the town a lot of money. The former -- well it is YOU who complain the most about Amherst's overly residential taxbase, devalung downtown would exacerbate that.

The larger issue -- I'm being dispassionately objective here Larry -- lots of people (yourself included) seek two mutually exclusive goals. You seek economic prosperity by having thousands upon thousands of young people living (and spending) in "your" community while not wanting to have thousands upon thousands of young people doing the sorts of things that young people have been doing since Biblical times....

You can't have both...

Larry, you can't have both. The only reason why Amherst doesn't resemble Ware & Wichendon is the fact that you have thousands upon thousands of often drunk UMass students spending their parents' money in "your" town.l

The solution is, of course, simple: get the Commonwealth to force UMass to reduce the size of the student body. Not only will that dry up this money but it will mean people working for UMass loosing their jobs -- being forced to sell their homes at a loss and all the rest.

The big debate in Maine is between the environmentalists in Southern Maine and the unemployed in pristine Northern/Eastern Maine. The latter are very much willing to accept dirtier air/water because you can't eat cleanliness. Because there are no jobs -- because their children are leaving and aren't coming back.

Larry, that's what you seek to do to Amherst -- I just hope you realize what you are doing...

Anonymous said...

It's hard for me to agree that the three bars (McMurphy's, Stackers, Olde Town Tavern) should have their permits pulled for 6 hours on that day. Either pull all alcohol permits or none at all (try telling Judy she can't seem booze until 5pm Saturday). Rafters, the Hanager, The Pub are all walking distance from campus so the crowds will just go there. BUT they can put pressure of the bars with making sure no one is over served and enforsning the fire code.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Enforsn the fire codes!

Anonymous said...

In Boston, for big playoff games either home or away near Fenway and the garden they don't allow bars to have lines to get in. You're either in or not waiting to get in. So once the bar is at capacity no one is allowed to wait outside for someone to leave. When people leave the bar they allow new people to enter but they would have to show up at that point in order to get in. I'm sure Ed Davis$$ report mentioned this, after all he was the commish in Boston when this policy went into effect.

Anonymous said...

Here's a "Modest Proposal" for Amherst - make it a dry town. Let's call it like it is, the problem is not students but ALCOHOL ALCOHOL ALCOHOL.

So, to the Select Board: Stop renewing liquor licenses. No more bars. No more packies. No more restaurants with hoity toity wine and top shelf liquors. The tax revenue is not worth it.