To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the article titled "City’s bid for more liquor permits hits deeply rooted bump up on Beacon Hill" in the Oct. 11th edition of the paper. I was disappointed to learn of the challenges faced by restaurants and entertainment venues due to the Legislature’s restrictive approach to liquor licenses. I see significant issues with the current limitations and believe there are no modern justifications for maintaining them.
Boston faces a per capita liquor license allocation that is significantly lower than other municipalities. This scarcity creates obstacles for small business owners due to high demand, especially considering Boston's year-round tourist economy. Notably, affluent coastal communities like Nantucket and Orleans are exempt from the quota system and can issue unlimited licenses. Similarly, both Worcester and Cambridge, cities comparable to Boston, can grant unlimited licenses.
The current system has a particularly adverse effect on underserved neighborhoods. Areas that are already facing economic challenges are further harmed by the lack of available liquor licenses, which could otherwise stimulate local economic growth and offer residents more dining and entertainment options.
By limiting these neighborhoods' access to licenses, including via the process by which the state awarded additional licenses in 2014, the state and the Legislature are perpetuating economic disparities and hindering community development.
Both our state and federal constitutions prioritize safeguarding individual rights against unequal and potentially discriminatory practices. The Equal Protection Clause stipulates that no state can "deny equal protection of the laws" to any person within its jurisdiction. Laws that result in unequal treatment, especially if they disproportionately affect a specific group or community, are subject to strict scrutiny.
While proving historical animus might be challenging, the current limitations on liquor licenses, which disproportionately impact Boston and its underserved neighborhoods, could potentially fail strict scrutiny. If this law's primary or significant effect is the unequal treatment of a particular group or community, the law may be on precarious legal ground.
I urge the Massachusetts Legislature, including Rep. Tackey Chan, to take decisive action and reform the existing law. As temporary relief, I suggest allocating additional licenses during the current legislative session. If requested, Boston should be granted the same “home rule” provisions as Nantucket, Cambridge, and numerous other municipalities.
This issue is critical for the economic development and equal treatment of all Boston residents and entrepreneurs.

Jake Wachman
Dorchester