Municipal leaders clamoring for greater authority over the number of alcohol licenses available in their cities and towns once again urged lawmakers Monday to adopt reforms previously embraced by top Beacon Hill Democrats.
Cities and towns currently must petition the Legislature in order to gain additional licenses, but proposals from Rep. Joseph McKenna and Sen. Jacob Oliveira (H 437 / S 279) seek to overhaul that protracted, unpredictable process by strengthening licensing authority at the local level.
The existing licensing framework, with control concentrated on Beacon Hill, has been in place since the 1930s, said Massachusetts Municipal Association legislative analyst Ali DiMatteo. In the last five years, the Legislature approved more than 80 home rule petitions, creating over 265 liquor licenses across Massachusetts, she said.
“We know you share this commitment to supporting local businesses and thriving downtowns. But actions that can often feel non-controversial but time-consuming for the Legislature are worth an effort to simplify,” DiMatteo said at a committee hearing. “Additionally, making the process more efficient can help municipal officials make more nimble and quick decisions when it comes to alcohol licensing. Local licensing authorities need to be entrusted with determining how many licenses are appropriate within their communities.”
Local licensing authorities would be allowed to grant licenses for the sale of alcoholic beverages “for on premises consumption apart from the current statutory quota limitations,” according to a House bill summary. The bill also requires that municipalities have a minimum of two off-premises consumption retail licenses, with additional licenses available for every 5,000 residents.
“It’s important to note that the commonwealth will retain control over the granting of licensure through the regulatory powers of the ABCC,” DiMatteo said, referring to the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. “But passage of H 437 and S 279 would streamline the lengthy process that exists now.”
Gov. Maura Healey last session floated a proposal to enable local governments to establish their own liquor license quotas and bypass the home rule petition process, though she did not end up incorporating that reform into her proposed Municipal Empowerment Act. Senate President Karen Spilka had voiced her support for the policy, telling reporters last year she “never understood why the Legislature approves them to begin with.”
Boston gained 225 liquor licenses under a successful home rule petition last session, intended to spur economic development in 13 targeted ZIP codes, including in Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan and East Boston. Legislators from Boston and outside the city celebrated that law’s economic development and equity benefits.
Meanwhile, Cohasset’s restaurant scene, including a major development project on the harbor, is hamstrung by the lack of liquor licenses, Town Manager Christopher Senior told lawmakers.
He argued local officials need “flexibility to provide licenses to locations that make local sense.” Cohasset is currently seeking five additional on-premises licenses through a home rule petition.
“We are now a victim of our own success. Every one of our 14 on-premises all alcohol licenses have been issued,” Senior testified virtually. “We are down to the last of our four wine and beer on-premises licenses.”
Oliveira, a Ludlow Democrat and one of the bill sponsors, was not allowed to testify virtually before the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure. Rep. Tackey Chan, who was co-chairing the hearing in Room A-2, made the decision based on a House joint rules reform measure that prohibits joint committee members from participating remotely but still allows the public to testify virtually.
“Pursuant to the House rules, the chair is not recognizing committee members who are not here physically in person,” Chan said. “As a result senator, the chair does not recognize Senator Oliveira.”
Committee Co-chair Sen. Pavel Payano, who said Oliveira was “on line” and ready to testify, accused the panel of trampling on a “sacred principle that no voice in democracy could be silenced.” Payano argued that silencing Oliveira also equated to silencing his constituents in Belchertown, Palmer, Wilbraham, Longmeadow, South Hadley, Warren, Hampden, Springfield, Granby, East Longmeadow and Ludlow.
“I think that that is a travesty,” Payano said. “You’re telling the entire community your concerns are not welcome here. This is just not a matter of procedural fairness. To me, I find it discriminatory. You know, the folks out in western Mass., it’s not the same as people that are closer to Boston.”
Payano then read the testimony that Oliveira had prepared to deliver. Chan, who said he understood “there are complications for some folks,” reiterated the House stance that legislators should testify in person.
The House-Senate conference committee tasked with reaching a deal on joint rules reforms has been unable to reach an agreement for weeks, and plans to meet on Thursday.
The Legislature is operating under 2019 rules, which are “silent on remote participation,” Oliveira said.
Ana Vivas, spokesperson for House Speaker Ron Mariano, told the News Service that Oliveira’s testimony “has been taken into consideration.”
“It’s also important to point out that the current joint rules do not expressly allow for remote participation, and have no mention on how to administer remote hearings,” Vivas said.
Senate President Karen Spilka said Oliveira was meeting with child care providers in his district Monday to discuss options to lower early education costs in western Massachusetts.
“It is deeply troubling to deny any sitting legislator the opportunity to testify on their own bill,” Spilka said in a statement Monday afternoon. “The joint rules the House and Senate mutually agreed to in January do not prohibit remote participation, and the notion that one branch’s rules can bind the operations of joint committees is without merit. I can personally attest to Senator Oliveira’s hard work and dedication to his district, his constituents, and the Senate. I thank him for ably serving all three this morning.”