Preserve Tisbury's Future

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the legislation mean bars and night clubs on the streets of Tisbury?

Can hard liquor be consumed in restaurants?

What about those establishments that don’t want (or are too small) to acquire a license?

What's in this for the Town other than more tax revenue?

How do Tisbury’s leaders view the legislation?

How does Tisbury’s government view the legislation?

Can the legislation lead to more liberal policies in the future, such as hard liquor and package stores?

How do we know that restaurants will continue to be primarily about food?

Will the legislation lead to a massive increase in the number of restaurants?

Will the legislation encourage irresponsible drinking?

Why is this legislation needed when patrons can already bring their own wine and beer to restaurants?

Is the quality of the dining experience affected in a dry town?

Are the town’s tax revenues affected by Tisbury’s status as a dry town?

  
     
 

Does the legislation mean bars and night clubs on the streets of Tisbury?

No.  It only allows restaurants to serve beer and wine to seated persons ordering a full meal.

Can hard liquor be consumed in restaurants? 

No.  Any licensed restaurant can serve only beer or wine.  This is more restrictive than the current policy which allows patrons to bring any alcoholic beverages in any quantity into any food service establishment.

What about those establishments that don’t want (or are too small) to acquire a license?

These places may continue the current policy of BYOB.

What’s in this for the Town other than more tax revenue?

If this passed in 2010, The Black Dog, Le Grenier, Nicky's, Saltwater, Zephrus and Waterside have pledged to collectively donate $10,000 annually for at least five years to Tisbury Institutions whose mission is to enhance and preserve the quality of life in Tisbury.

How do Tisbury’s leaders view the legislation?

Since the last vote was so close (a tie on the first count and a two vote differential on the re-count), and because there was a considerable confusion about what the legislation actually said, it was felt that the question should be brought before the whole town one more time to see if the outcome could be more decisive.

How does Tisbury’s government view the legislation?

The Tisbury Police Department, Fire Department and Department of Public Works have stated that the legislation will cause no significant impact on their operations.  This followed a year long study of the potential impacts. The full study can be viewed here. (Adobe .pdf format)

Can the legislation lead to more liberal policies in the future, such as hard liquor and package stores?

No. Some have suggested that this legislation is merely a stepping stone to much more permissive regulations allowing taverns, hard liquor, package stores and the like.  But those kinds of changes are not allowed within this legislation.  Any change to the legislation, however minor, will require the same full Town review and step-by-step two or three year process to enact.

How do we know that restaurants will continue to be primarily about food?

Last year the regulations limited the sale of beer and wine to 35% of gross sales in a given restaurant.  This can be easily monitored by the Selectmen through the meals tax that all restaurants pay.

Will the legislation lead to a massive increase in the number of restaurants?

No.  It is very difficult to open food service establishments in Tisbury.  In addition to the normal barriers to new business such as zoning and health regulations, any potential new restaurant will have great difficulty in finding an outlet for its wastewater.  Restaurants use more water and generate more wastewater than almost any consumer business.  The Tisbury sewer system is already near capacity.  There is currently no initiative to increase capacity and if one develops it will take years to permit and construct.  The alternative – a traditional septic system – is not an option in any downtown area because of stringent regulations and lack of space.

Will the legislation encourage irresponsible drinking?

Just the opposite. After the passage of legislation BYOB will not be allowed in any establishment holding a beer and wine license. The current practice of BYOB in restaurants is actually far more permissive than what is proposed.  Under the current policy patrons can carry beer, wine and hard liquor into any food service establishment, in any quantity, with no limits on consumption.  The policy unwittingly encourages either driving with open containers, which is illegal, or the consumption of every last drop of a patron’s stash.

The current policy of BYOB also absolves restaurant operators of any responsibility to control patrons’ drinking.  However, under a license to sell alcoholic beverages there is an implied responsibility by the restaurant operator for the actions of patrons who become inebriated at their establishment.  It is well settled in law that operators can be held liable in such cases.  Accordingly the legislation will result in a higher degree of regulation and more responsible drinking.

Why is this legislation needed when patrons can already bring their own wine and beer to restaurants?

While it sounds good the reality is that the advance planning required to “bring your own” is a deterrent for most people.   A spontaneous meal just isn’t possible, and that’s too bad because sometimes the best experiences come after running into a friend or eating out on a whim.  Even when it’s a planned event it’s pretty easy to forget to bring wine or miscalculate and bring too much or too little for the party.  In short, it’s an irritant.  It’s asking a lot for customers to deal with this when they can go elsewhere and not worry about it.

For the visitor this is greatly magnified.  Alcoholic beverages are expected to be available in restaurants.  When they find they aren’t available they obviously resolve to eat (and stay) elsewhere in the future.   And in many cases they carry a healthy dose of resentment with them because an evening they had been looking forward to was not what they expected.  They spent a lot and couldn’t even get a glass of wine. 

To be sure there are some residents who like the BYOB policy because they perceive that eating out is cheaper – wine bought in a package store is cheaper than wine bought in a restaurant.  But when wine can’t be sold in a restaurant the food has to cost more if the restaurant is to be profitable.  As we have seen historically in Tisbury more often than not the restaurants just fail.  But if they are to succeed they are going to be pricey.  So in the end an individual who “brings his own” may feel he is getting a good deal but is really just enabling a policy that makes the food cost more.  And he unwittingly contributes to the failure of his community’s restaurant base.  The latter by any measure causes a diminution in the local quality of life.

Finally, it's pretty obvious that when a patron brings his own the profit doesn't stay in Tisbury. It goes straight to the package store in Edgartown or Oak Bluffs.

Is the quality of the dining experience affected in a dry town?

Yes, absolutely.  Diners, coffee shops, bakeries and such can thrive in a dry town.  Every town needs these and we in Tisbury are fortunate to have so many good ones.  But the places we want to go to for a celebration or a special occasion, for a business dinner, or for a get together with friends requires a different environment -- more spacious, more atmospheric, more architectural, perhaps with a view – in short a lot more expensive to create.  It is an uphill battle to amortize this extra capital cost if you can’t offer beer and wine.  This is the reality of the restaurant business, that’s all. 

So it should come as no surprise that Tisbury is short on such establishments, and that there is frequent failure and turnover.  This is a quality of life issue:  the dining experience in Tisbury is lacking, but it doesn’t have to be.

Are the town’s tax revenues affected by Tisbury’s status as a dry town?

Yes.  Numbers don’t lie. Visit the section on taxes further on in this web site.
To pretend that this doesn’t affect all of us is to have our head in the sand.  The bottom line is that everyone’s property taxes are higher than they need to be.