Showdown on Beacon Hill

Since the special town meeting is in 6 days why not just wait to see how the vote goes. If the additional licenses pass then withdraw this legislation and submit a new bill authorizing the 3 licenses. If the town meeting vote is no then continue to push this one.

If this bill does pass in the next few days and town meeting votes to add licenses doesn't the process start all over again anyway? I don't see the urgency anymore of getting this passed.

At the Finance Commission hearing, this question was raised and while there was not a definitive answer, the best guess of those present was that it was unlikely unfinished business from a prior session would survive. Remember, we elect "new" representatives in November, so it is kind of a brand new ball game when the legislature reconvenes as a new session.

An interesting consequence of the failure to pass the "Wegmans bill" prior to town meeting is that Article 1 at Town Meeting could be the only way to get Wegmans a license. If the original bill dies, then Wegmans could get a license under the new Article 1--IF it passes town meeting and if it is quickly enacted.

All of this begs the question of why the original Wegmans bill was not simply voted on during the regular session. Hindsight is 20/20, but a good operating assumption is that nothing related to Westwood Station can be considered "non-controversial" or likely to be accepted with unanimous consent.

HOUSE IN RECESS AS WESTWOOD-CANTON DISPUTE SIMMERS: The House by early Wednesday afternoon was in its second recess of the day, as members remain deadlocked over a Westwood home-rule petition. The House gaveled in att 11 am and Rep. William Galvin immediately peppered Rep. Paul Donato, who is chairing the session, with parliamentary questions about the process for placing bills at the end of the calendar. After a two-hour recess, Galvin immediately made a statement, declaring that he would be willing to put the contentious Westwood bill at the end of the calendar to take up other bills. The House then immediately recessed again to return at 3:15 pm. The dispute over the bill is threatening to hold up activity in both branches, with Rep. Paul McMurtry vowing to prevent bills from reaching the governor’s desk until his bill granting a wine and beer license to a Westwood supermarket advances. That bill has been held for weeks, first by Rep. Angelo Scaccia and now by Galvin. Galvin maintains that granting the alcohol license to the Westwood supermarket, a Wegmans slated to be built in a massive mixed-use development, would clog local roads with traffic that will spill into neighboring Canton, which he represents.

The House reconvenes (informally still) today at noon, perhaps for a final resolution of this Wegmans beer and wine license.

You are correct, NOWHERE, have I seen the interesting argument that Westwood Station would be so successful that it would sap away business from Canton. I presume an example of this would be if tenants in Village Shoppes at Washington St/Route 27 wanted to move...e.g. Eastern Mountain Sports? That seems an extremely hypothetical argument and one that could be made about practically any development.

Let's suppose that 5 or 10 years from now Westwood Station is doing so well that businesses are eager to move in to fill the retail space. Why not build a Canton Station nearby? I think that's what's likely to happen...if this project puts Westwood on the map, then I'd expect more mixed use development in Dedham, Canton, and Norwood in proximity to Westwood Station. But that's like 10-15 years away and only likely under the most economically optimistic projections immaginable. That's what I've describe in other blog posts as the "birth" of an "Edge City."

Perhaps things don't go so well...do you think Westwood Station will be trying to "poach" tenants from Canton to fill the unused space? I think that would be a hard sell--to relocate from a successful Canton location to a failing Westwood one.