On Tuesday the Select Board discussed and disposed of a series of issues that gave the impression it was overseeing Needham’s version of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
The first issue was a communication from the Massachusetts State Lottery Commission asking whether the board had any objection to issuing a Keno license sought by the proprietors of Conrad’s, the restaurant planning to open in early 2025 in the former Bertucci’s location at 1257 Highland Ave.
As it turned out, the Select Board did object, even though owner Bobby Conrad described allowing Keno in the most benign terms.
“It’s not like it’s in your face everywhere you look,” Conrad said, noting there would be a handful of Keno screens among the more than two dozen TVs to be featured in the family-friendly, casual dining spot.
Conrad said other Conrad’s locations run Keno, and he has never experienced a problem. “It’s not like it’s a huge money maker. It’s just an added attraction,” he said, noting that the restaurant receives 5% of the intake from players and 1% of winnings.
Select Board member Heidi Frail asked Town Manager Kate Fitzpatrick how the town might monitor the Keno activity. Fitzpatrick said members of her staff talked to officials in Foxboro and Walpole, where Conrad’s also operates, and they didn’t indicate they do formal checks on the Keno operations. They also reported no problems.
None of the town’s current restaurant operators feature Keno. The Village Club, which is private, holds the only Keno license in town. Select Board members expressed discomfort with introducing Keno outside of a private club, with member Cathy Dowd expressing concern that Needham’s other restaurants may feel compelled to add it out of fear of losing a competitive advantage.
“I don’t mean to go all Cotton Mather on you, but gambling is everywhere,” Select Board Chair Kevin Keane said to Conrad. “It’s even on your phone. I mean, you never leave the casino.”
“I don’t think any of us want to sit here and feel preachy,” added member Marianne Cooley. “But I really wish it weren’t there and I wish this request wasn’t coming before us.”
More than one member argued against combining alcohol and gambling. “I just find state-sponsored gambling is a tax on those who are the most susceptible,” said Keane. “And we’re all OK with it because it pays for the schools.”
“It’s taking more of a moral stance, and that makes me a little uncomfortable,” said member Josh Levy, but he still joined his four colleagues in voting unanimously to let the Lottery Commission know of the board’s objection to the license.
Conrad still had the option to seek the license, but has opted not to pursue it. “There’s no sense in ruffling any feathers. The board has spoken and I’m going to respect their decision,” he said after the meeting.
On to firearms
Later in the meeting the board discussed a request from a former Needham resident to return to his hometown to do some duck hunting along the Charles River.
Ted Van Sickle, a former Needham resident, unsuccessfully sought the Select Board’s required approval to “discharge a firearm for the purpose of duck hunting on public property, located on the Charles River approximately 900 feet to the southeast of the Town’s Charles River Water Treatment Facility.”
“In my tenure, the board has never approved discharging a firearm on public property. I don’t think there’s been any requests submitted,” said Fitzpatrick, whose tenure in town dates back to the late 1980s.
In a letter to the board, Van Sickle said he found an isolated spot along the river 515 feet from the nearest dwelling which complies with Massachusetts hunting laws prohibiting discharge of a firearm “within 500 feet of any dwelling or building in use.”
Admitting her research was “cursory” on the overall trajectory of a firearm, member Heidi Frail said she was concerned that this 500-foot boundary did not guarantee the safety of passersby. “So if I understand that correctly, what that means is that shooting a gun would go beyond the boundary specified, which makes me very uncomfortable.”
Referring to a map Van Sickle provided detailing his 500-foot zone, Chair Kevin Keane said, “Congratulations, you found one spot, but I would still say ‘no.’”
After less than 10 minutes of discussion, the board voted 5-0 to deny the request. “I expect to win the duck vote,” Keane quipped.
And then there’s tobacco
Near the end of the meeting, Tim McDonald, director of health and human services, provided the Select Board with an overview of the Board of Health’s effort to institute a generational tobacco ban.
The Board of Health has held multiple public hearings on the issue and may vote at its Nov. 22 meeting on a regulation that would ban the sale of tobacco and vapor products to anyone born on or after Jan. 1, 2004. More than a dozen Massachusetts communities either are considering or have passed similar “age-gating” policies inspired by the Tobacco-Free Generation movement.
The presentation included a lengthy dialogue between McDonald and the board in which Select Board members offered various reasons why they felt the policy was an overreach on the part of the Board of Health.
Josh Levy expressed concern that young people already addicted to nicotine products would be forced to turn to black market or gray market sources.
“I absolutely recognize it’s meant to make people healthier and safer, but I think it goes a bit too far,” said Frail.
Dowd asked how the law has had an impact in Brookline, which became the first community in the country to implement an age-gated policy in 2020. McDonald said there has not been sufficient time to collect data to provide an answer on its impact or efficacy.
Keane argued the law amounted to a failure to learn the lessons from the U.S. experience with Prohibition. “If there’s a book on how to screw up a society, then Prohibition would probably be Chapter 1. And this sort of sounds like it.
“I think you’re running into a forbidden-fruit syndrome. Otherwise law-abiding people would be put on the wrong side of the law for a strange reason.”
McDonald did not push back too hard on the objections but offered an affirmative defense of the policy as a proper exercise of the Board of Health’s authority.
“I am a firm believer in ‘health in all policies’ and that almost everything has some type of health impact” he said.
“I do think this is us essentially playing in our sandbox where we are comfortable rather than asserting the need to regulate something that has historically been in another board’s purview.”
In the end, the Select Board voted unanimously to have the town manager submit comments to the Board of Health reflecting the conversation that took place at the meeting.
Save as PDF