| Author | Post |
|---|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:00 am |
|
Scrapple edited while I posted ...
added this ...
(And Pete, I am joking, so don't get upset.)
What makes you think I'm upset?
Am I typing too loudly?
It's really funny how people read into things.
Some of your posts don't oooze with sweetness.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:06 am by Pete Macinta
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:58 am |
|
scrapple wrote: I never knew there was such a Puritan streak in Cambridge when I moved here. Maybe the teetotalers should lobby to make Dorchester a dry county. If they succeed, everyone but them will move and they can open more churches in the vacant homes.
Wow! what a thought. This is a great idea. If you check Cambridge History, we are known for more than the racial riots of the 60's. Freeborn Garrison was locked up here for preaching the Gospel. many factories shut down to attend church services. It is because churches and Christians have spoken out in the past that things changed.
You have gone off the deep end scrapple, This is not what anyone on this thread is insinuating. to not question what is going on around you, is insanity! besides it is not puritan, it is Christian.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:57 am |
|
I never knew there was such a Puritan streak in Cambridge when I moved here. Maybe the teetotalers should lobby to make Dorchester a dry county. If they succeed, everyone but them will move and they can open more churches in the vacant homes.
Sounds like you have a thing about churches. Maybe you misunderstand them? Perhaps overlook some things, like the merciful God passages in Deuteronomy?
Ok scrapple, let's make believe Grace isn't a church but is a school. What would your words be for that scenario?
Here's another question - don't you agree in democracy and free speech? You do realize at least some of the people are
1. citizens of Cambridge /Dorchester
2. they pay taxes
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:58 am by Pete Macinta
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:47 am |
|
I never knew there was such a Puritan streak in Cambridge when I moved here. Maybe the teetotalers should lobby to make Dorchester a dry county. If they succeed, everyone but them will move and they can open more churches in the vacant homes.
(And Pete, I am joking, so don't get upset.)
But seriously ... nobody's talking about relocating Sidetrack'd off its Easton foundation and moving it next to a church. I shouldn't even have to say this, but alcohol -- especially in moderation, served at a nice establishment where someone can purchase a good meal -- is not only legal, but its use goes back throughout society back to the ancient Egyptians and prior. I made this comment before, but a lot of the ideas of our Republic were brainstormed over a few mugs of ale.
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:53 am by scrapple
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:09 am |
|
Oh come on all. This man has a good idea for a restaurant. He has to compete with others. It's a family restaurant. So be it he has a liquor license.It could bring more people into Cambridge having a license. Look at Talbot Cty. Many restaurants/w liquor license and it helps bring people down town.
Also bring art, stores opening etc. at nights. This way people after eating at restaurants can explore the area.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:01 am |
|
| I am not a big drinker, but I do not have a problem with a restaurant offering cocktails or a cold one for that matter to diners. I would much rather have more restaurants which serve booze than any more beer joints, or retail sellers of 'off sale' alcohol. There is nothing that makes a neighborhood look trashier than an off sale establishment with tons of advertising on the exterior of the building, for example look at the old Maryland Ave Quick Shop. All those signs for booze and cigarettes are really unattractive.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 02:53 am |
|
if we keep making wrong choices, the real dark ages will come lochness. Any idea what I mean by that?
Like some have said, - you can have a restaurant without alcohol.
IMO, there's enough alcohol in Dorchester.
Oh yes, it's there already. But some folk like me don't want more of it.
But whether some want this, or don't want this, I sincerely encourage both sides to speak up. I enjoy democracy at work.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 02:58 am by Pete Macinta
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 291 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
I can't even believe that this discussion has gone on so long. It's pointless. Let's just hang a sign on the bridge that says "Go away! Our laws are stupid and we don't want new businesses."
I've lived here all my life and sometimes I feel like we're back in the dark ages, or more accurately the time of the Puritans and the Salem Witch Trials. For goodness sake, let the poor guy at least try and make a go of it with his restaurant!
|
2times
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 01:58 am |
|
mustang1 wrote: pooh_b_21632 wrote: 2times wrote: Believe me when I say, if there is no Liquor, there will be no restaurant. Just does not make sense. Booze = Profit
Thats is not true there are many resturant patrons that do not drink me being one of them. There are also many resturants that are quite often packed that do not serve alcohol. My husband does have an occasional drink (not as much as he use to) when we are out but if a resturant did not serve alcohol that would not stop us from dining there.
Pooh you are correct, you don't need alcohol to do good business. Look at Old Salty's in Hoopers Island. They never started serving alcohol untill the new owner took over a few years ago. However you were allowed to bring your own, but what kept people comming back was the wonderful food, not the booze.
Pooh/Mustang1, I respect you statements and accept the truth in them.
However, in this case, with this particular restaurant, if Alcohol is not allowed to be served in this restaurant,Micro Brewery or not, there will be NO restaurant. Period
|
thinkfirst
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 01:20 am |
|
| Regardless of who has issues, of the rules, or our opinions, you can not tell me that the developer did not know the code before the restaurant was planned. Maybe the guy that is planning it should lease himself another building. Maybe it was the intent to shove it down our throats. Who knows? The codes have been in effect for HOW many years? Does it surprise you that it just came up?
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
| Grandma, both the city and county codes have to be complied with. The zoning laws are local and the liquor board must ascertain that a license is at a location where the proposed use is in compliance. However, the county liquor laws are set at the state level, by the General Assembly, generally at the request of the county in question. Article 2B of the Annotated Code of Md is the part of the code which deals with them, and cannot be superseeded by local ordinance. Since the Dorchester County Liquor Board is the one that issues the license, they have to comply with the state law. I might ad that Dorchester is the only county in Md with this particular law in force.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 07:35 pm |
|
| There are many great restaurants that do not serve alcohol. It will be diversity in eating choices that people will look for in Cambridge, or any town. I think it came up earlier in the thread, but has anyone thought of where all of the people who will be patronizing all of these establishments will park?
|
mustang1
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
pooh_b_21632 wrote: 2times wrote: Believe me when I say, if there is no Liquor, there will be no restaurant. Just does not make sense. Booze = Profit
Thats is not true there are many resturant patrons that do not drink me being one of them. There are also many resturants that are quite often packed that do not serve alcohol. My husband does have an occasional drink (not as much as he use to) when we are out but if a resturant did not serve alcohol that would not stop us from dining there.
Pooh you are correct, you don't need alcohol to do good business. Look at Old Salty's in Hoopers Island. They never started serving alcohol untill the new owner took over a few years ago. However you were allowed to bring your own, but what kept people comming back was the wonderful food, not the booze.
|
pooh_b_21632
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:20 pm |
|
2times wrote: Believe me when I say, if there is no Liquor, there will be no restaurant. Just does not make sense. Booze = Profit
Thats is not true there are many resturant patrons that do not drink me being one of them. There are also many resturants that are quite often packed that do not serve alcohol. My husband does have an occasional drink (not as much as he use to) when we are out but if a resturant did not serve alcohol that would not stop us from dining there.
|
grandma
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 703 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:08 pm |
|
| CC: I beg to differ with you on that point. I know in the past that an applicant for a county liquor license within the city of Cambridge had to bring a letter from the zoning office stating that it was a permitted use in that area along with their application.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:36 pm |
|
scrapple writes
Do we -- anywhere on the mid-Shore -- have a problem of people stepping out of an evening in a pricey establishment that serves alcohol and a chef's menus, and making a ruckus near our precious churches? Go back in the thread -- look at the proposal? How can a church be worried about this kind of place? I'm sorry churches have so much influence here. Had that church been a school, would you complain? or use the phrase,"our precious schools"?
The fact is the church is right in the area, and many of the people that attend are tax paying citizens.
And it boils down to the word citizen - churchgoer or not. The citizen has the right to say they are in favor or not in favor of this given situation, IMO, even the ones from outside of Cambridge.
IMO, everyone in Dorchester has a say in this if they want, and that includes Grace Methodist - and as someone pointed out, apparently not all of Grace's people are against it, so scrapple, don't exclude Grace church because you might just jolly well exclude some supporters. For all we know, Grace might have meeting and its members vote to support the thing. Leave 'em be and let them work it out among themselves.
God bless,
Pete
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:21 pm |
|
Do we -- anywhere on the mid-Shore -- have a problem of people stepping out of an evening in a pricey establishment that serves alcohol and a chef's menus, and making a ruckus near our precious churches?
Go back in the thread -- look at the proposal? How can a church be worried about this kind of place? I'm sorry churches have so much influence here.
|
guest2006
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 30 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
| Another point no one has mentioned with this is how many families do you really think will be at that part of Race Street after dark, alcohol or not...
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
| The county issues liquor licenses, ergo the 300 ft clause takes precedence over any city law.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 2246 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:45 pm |
|
Thanks, Grandma....now does that override the County 300 ft. rule.
And how did they measure it.....from what point to what point and in what direction.
|
abbeys mommy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 540 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
| If this restaurant gets blocked because of any of these reasons- this is a loss to Cambridge & will verify what alot of us already say...Cambridge will never be anymore than it already is ..... a clip of as town that you pass by on your way to the beach!!!! hopefully if this man does get blocked ,he'll look @ other locations available in Cambridge.... because we could use a restaurant of this type here!!!
|
grandma
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 703 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:40 pm |
|
| Just as an FYI folks, Cambridge City Zoning Code allows the on-premise sale of alcohol as an accessory use to a "bonafide restaurant", so long as the full definition of "restaurant" is met including gross food sales far outweighing alcohol sales.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:01 pm |
|
Pete Macinta wrote: 4Godncountry wrote...
Good Post! I agree, and since they do not know exactly what it will be, question it, find out and make an INFORMED decision. Good point. No matter what side of the fence we are on, on this issue, it would be good to attend any meetings any board or commission has on this.
Many of the citizens of the cities and the county have done very well in coming out and speaking up.
Hopefully the newpapers and MTS will keep us informed of meetings.
God bless,
Pete
not clinging to codes, just people who are concerned enough to question. I would question even if there were no codes. It helps to read the entire thread before commenting! your last post says exactly what I have said.
|
AMallard
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Cambridge |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:35 pm |
|
| AND, many people I have talked to from Grace are not opposed in the least. They just want information, that's all. They were told via a telephone message to oppose it before anyone knew anything about it. That's unfortunate for both sides because the result has been a lot of confusion and misunderstandings. I am hopeful, though, that this can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction.
|
2times
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:32 pm |
|
AMallard wrote: 4GodNCountry, why do you keep clinging to the annotated code as the final answer? That's never the final answer in a legal setting, it's just the beginning.
Correct, the system will work out the details in this situation. All parties have the right to voice their opinions on either side of the issue to influence the final outcome. Grace Church verses Dorchester County?
|
AMallard
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Cambridge |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:25 pm |
|
| 4GodNCountry, why do you keep clinging to the annotated code as the final answer? That's never the final answer in a legal setting, it's just the beginning.
|
2times
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:21 pm |
|
| Believe me when I say, if there is no Liquor, there will be no restaurant. Just does not make sense. Booze = Profit
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
| The Code states, "a new license to sell any alcoholic beverage". This would include, quick shops,resturaunts,liquor stores,bars etc.....Check out the rest of the thread...No where has any body said they opposed a resturant. Just inquiries into WHAT is going to be going into the nieghborhood! Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:24 pm by 4Godncountry
|
AMallard
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Cambridge |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 12:05 pm |
|
| That's very short sighted on the part of other restaurants. They need to realize that more restaurants = more new stores = more people coming downtown.
|
2times
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:39 am |
|
AMallard wrote: But I for one can't for the life of me see why anyone in their right might would oppose a family restaurant on a block desperately in need of renovation and improvement.
Maybe another restaurant in close proximity to the new restaurant might not want additional competition in the neighborhood??
|
AMallard
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Cambridge |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:31 am |
|
It's wonderful that you can cut and paste the Annotated Code, but that doesn't end the legal argument. Did you know that there is also a city code which countermands that specific code provision because the council at the time correctly realized that that provision might pose a problem in a metropolitan city where churches, stores, restaurants, and livings spaces all coexist close to one another? However, that has little effect because State and County laws typically trump City. To further complicate things, is the fact that there is case law in Maryland suggesting that this type of provision is narrowly construed to apply to liquor stores, NOT restaurants.
So, don't think that just because the Code says one thing that the case is closed. If that were so, there would never be any lawsuits and the General Assembly wouldn't need to meet.
Nobody is suggesting that people don't have a right to speak for or against something. But I for one can't for the life of me see why anyone in their right might would oppose a family restaurant on a block desperately in need of renovation and improvement.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:32 am by AMallard
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:47 am |
|
I pasted the annotated code, for reference.
9-210. Dorchester County.
(a) Proximity of premises to churches or schools.- Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in Dorchester County, a new license may not be granted to sell any alcoholic beverage on any premises located within 300 feet of a church or public school.
(b) Exceptions.- Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to the granting of a license for a premises located within the restricted distance if a license to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises existed as of October 1, 1996.
[An. Code, 1951, § 47; 1947, ch. 501, § 44; 1989, ch. 5, § 15; 1996, ch. 366; 2007, ch. 374.]
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:49 am by 4Godncountry
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:49 am |
|
The bar/church regulation would be blasphemy to an Irishman. I think it should be repealed. Keep the school reg., but why can't a bar be near a church? For some people, bars are like church...
And taverns were the meeting places where most of the ideas that led to the Consitution and Declaration of Independence were drafted. A place where the public can meet and discuss the issues of the day over a tasty beverage. Nothing wrong with that.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:59 am |
|
4Godncountry wrote...
Good Post! I agree, and since they do not know exactly what it will be, question it, find out and make an INFORMED decision. Good point. No matter what side of the fence we are on, on this issue, it would be good to attend any meetings any board or commission has on this.
Many of the citizens of the cities and the county have done very well in coming out and speaking up.
Hopefully the newpapers and MTS will keep us informed of meetings.
God bless,
Pete
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:57 am |
|
I looked at Art 2B of the Annotated Code of Md. there is a statute there which in dorchester Co prohibits the issuance of a new alcoholic beverage license to any establishment within 300 ft of a church or school.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:00 am by CRIMECRUNCHER
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:52 am |
|
CRIMECRUNCHER wrote: Its not a church state issue, its more of a quality of life issue. There is a law enhancing the penalties for selling dope within a certain radius of a school, the same principle is at work here. That said, I think there is a big difference between a beer joint and a restaurant. If I were the folks at Grace Church, I would not want a dive like the Orange Lantern across the street from my church either.
Good Post! I agree, and since they do not know exactly what it will be, question it, find out and make an INFORMED decision.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:48 am |
|
| Its not a church state issue, its more of a quality of life issue. There is a law enhancing the penalties for selling dope within a certain radius of a school, the same principle is at work here. That said, I think there is a big difference between a beer joint and a restaurant. If I were the folks at Grace Church, I would not want a dive like the Orange Lantern across the street from my church either.
|
resisto
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:40 am |
|
I think that Grace Church has every right to question, but based on what I know about the situation, I hope that a variance of some kind is granted for the restaurant across the street. I get no indictation that this place is going to be any kind of a dive or house of iniquity.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:31 am |
|
loch ness wrote: "The law is the law"? Come on! Get real. Rememeber that next time you go 26MPH in a 25 MPH zone. This law was tailored and designed to prevent liquor stores and dive bars from popping up, not legitimate restaurants. Try and be reasonable.
If it is a legitimate restaurant, with no liquor, the Law doesn't apply. If it serves Liquor, it does apply! you miss my points, which I'll state again...Grace has a legal, legitimate, right to question! thats all!
|
loch ness
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 291 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:24 am |
|
| "The law is the law"? Come on! Get real. Rememeber that next time you go 26MPH in a 25 MPH zone. This law was tailored and designed to prevent liquor stores and dive bars from popping up, not legitimate restaurants. Try and be reasonable.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:14 am |
|
SueCarol wrote: Again, IF the Supremes decision that there is really a separation of church and state is valid ( I dont buy into it...but right now it is the law of the land) then how is that 300 ft law valid.
not to cross threads, but the Law does not affect the Church. It affects the area around the church (300 ft). It actually proves a point that religion, as stated in the amendments, usurps Government authority. In an attempt to keep it "Holy" lawmakers were protecting it! thus the law. People have changed most of these laws. anyone remember the Blue Laws? Liquor laws, etc... they were all based on Religious standards! With the false notion of "separation of Church and state", we have and are drifting from those standards at a fast pace! BTW, I understand your stance on separation of church and state, and your question is a valid one!
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:10 am |
|
SueCarol wrote: Again, IF the Supremes decision that there is really a separation of church and state is valid ( I dont buy into it...but right now it is the law of the land) then how is that 300 ft law valid.
I agree with you SC. It't can't be valid if there is a separation of church and state. This is suppose to be a family resturant not a bar.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:12 am by pineknot
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 2246 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:03 am |
|
Again, IF the Supremes decision that there is really a separation of church and state is valid ( I dont buy into it...but right now it is the law of the land) then how is that 300 ft law valid.
|
4Godncountry
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 02:00 am |
|
The law still exists of 300 ft. Law is Law, if someone doesn't like it, get it changed! Grace has every RIGHT to have the LAW enforced! I just read (couple of weeks ago) where a gentleman(??) was stopped and given a citation in Easton (?)for not having a shirt on in a public place. It is a little known law, just not always enforced. But it is the Law. Whether we NEED another restaurant is debatable, presently the Law is not!
Don't bash them for questioning what is moving in next door! It doesn't mean that they are not for growth in Cambridge. we all should be so inclined to check out what kind of Growth is taking place in the City!
Didn't something similar happen to the proposed Liquor store on Glasgow St? since it was across from the School?
|
memphis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 31 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:33 am |
|
The saying that a rising tide lifts all boats is very very true, and this Restaurant wil be a much needed benefit, and will increase the desireability of heading downtown to ALL restaurants. People from the Hyatt and locals come downtown more and more now, but if you ask them why they don't spend all day like they do in St. Michael's or Easton, it's because of the variety of restaurants. We have EXCELLENT restaurants downtown, Bistro Poplar, Canvasbacks, Cambridge Grill, Snapper's and Portside, all have great offerings. But people do want a big concentration in order to spend the day in a downtown. People in Easton have a drink at, for example, the Washington Street Pub, then maybe go to Scossa for dinner, then maybe dessert at Out of the Fire. This makes for a fun a vibrant area when you can go from one place to another. More restaurants also brings more stores.
The whole point is, we need to embrace people who are willing to sink a lot of money into this town and create jobs, not make it hard for them. Certainly people can ask questions, but they need to listen to the answers and think about the betterment of our community.
It's NOT a brew pub! Not that it matters - Ram's Head single handedly revitalized a run-down portion of Annapolis!
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:35 am by memphis
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 2246 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
If you are for this restaurant...it is important you be at the meeting when it is held.
Sounds to me like there is a very intense effort to stop it so there has to be a good showing of supporters to counter those against it.
Many times, it is the numbers who show up that sway the people on the committees...sad as that is.
If anyone knows when the hearing will be held, please let us know so we can try and get the supporters to the meeting.
Just for a historical context...I remember as a child (and a member of Grace Church) when they tried to stop the pharmacy that was across the street from opening on Sunday.
|
pineknot
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 758 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:17 am |
|
Adude wrote: don't want to be a hater, but why does Cambridge need another restaurant? Is it really going to do that much good? These things usually fail in town...this place sounds like ram's head of Annapolis. I love it there, but don't see it being that successful in town. The track record, aside from canvasback, is not very good from this vantage point. grace sent a pre-recorded phone message to its members (that should get all of you fired up!) saying that this new restaurant would include a micro-brewery...I don't think they would have done that if it wasn't true.
Cambridge needs another restaurant for the betterment of the town. The more downtown interest's the more downtown prospers. Don't be a downer on Cambridge moving forward, it can and should. More people downtown more other business can come in, open and help with tourism. The more Hyatt people start to enjoy Cambridge.
|
thinkfirst
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
| I believe that if the business owners can hang on a little longer through this recession Cambridge WILL grow, and probably at a good clip... but SC, it isn't just the people that are tough to please, the local restaurant owners (1 in particular sicced the liquor board on Great Slates more than once...) maybe the Church is just speaking for someone else.
|
scrapple
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 12:59 am |
|
brett504 wrote: There is nothing wrong with a restaurant serving drinks, they should put a rule in effect if they do that they will serve 1-2 drinks to a per person, so they do not get drunk.
Hah -- not very likely from a business perspective. Restaurants make a lot of money on drinks; while yes, they do have some responsibility not to get someone sloshed, they're certainly not going to want to cap their profit at two drinks per.
Also, even if a church is open more than Sunday, is it open at midnight or 2 a.m. when bars let out -- i.e. the timeframe during which it would be most likely for a (gasp!) drunk person to wander the streets? No.
I am all in favor of their right as an organization to question this potential establishment, but I think their argument holds no water and I think any sane liquor board would shoot it down.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 2246 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 12:53 am |
|
Personally I think a micro brewery at a restaurant would be good....
I just do NOT understand why people in our county continuously try and stop anything coming here then cry because things are so bad.
I will support this restaurant and hope that if it gets the permits it needs that it will succeed...but that is as with any business something that may or may not work.
But why put obstacles in the way of people who want to try and bring something positive to our area.
I love this county...born and raised here....but sometimes I just shake my head at the attitudes of the people who live here....the newbies and the ones born here.
|
Current time is 10:44 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|