Shocked to learn there is gambling going on in this establishment.

By Liam Day
October 28th, 2008

Reading the affadavit submitted by Special Agent Corr in the Diane Wilkerson case, I can glean at first glance two lessons - apart from the obvious one that taking bribes to grease the wheels for a liquor license probably doesn’t make for sound public policy.

1) I hate to beat the drum on transparency, but, if Senator Wilkerson’s description of its deliberative process as “smoke and mirrors” is anywhere near accurate, the Boston Licensing Board is in more dire need of transparency than any government organization I’m aware of.

2) When government boards and agencies are the gatekeepers of economic activity, corruption inevitably ensues. It did when Jack Abramoff was lobbying for clients with casino interests and it seems to have here.

As my colleague Steve Poftak pointed out to me, the math is pretty glaring. If the cost of purchasing a transferable liquor license on the open market is currently running between $250,000 and $300,000, but the cost of buying a non-transferable license directly from the city runs only about $2,000 per month for the term of the license, prospective buyers not only have a distinct incentive to finagle a non-transferable license out of the city, they can pay an enormous amount of money to potentially corrupt politicians in order to obtain the license and still strike a bargain. As currently structured, Boston’s process for licensing the sale of alcohol at restaurants and bars invites corruption and has for years. Should we really be surprised when it finally manifests itself.