Connect with us

Boston, MA

Boston City Council weighing contentious new food delivery tax

Published

on

Boston City Council weighing contentious new food delivery tax


The Boston City Council is considering hitting companies like DoorDash, Grubhub and Uber Eats with a new delivery tax on food orders as part of a city crackdown on their unruly drivers, but critics say consumers and restaurants will pay the price.

The Council is discussing a potential amendment to a “road safety and accountability for delivery providers ordinance” proposed by the mayor that would tack on a 15-cent delivery fee per order for national third-party food delivery companies that operate in Boston.

The potential new fee has proven to be contentious thus far.

The Massachusetts Restaurant Association sent a letter to the mayor and City Council outlining its opposition, but the councilor behind the idea says it’s a key approach to ensuring enforcement of the proposed ordinance, which aims to crack down on food-app delivery drivers who flout traffic rules.

Advertisement

“The 15-cent delivery fee is a necessary step to address the increased strain delivery traffic places on our streets,” Councilor Sharon Durkan, who proposed the fee amendment, said in a statement to the Herald. “This fee ensures we can effectively implement the ordinance and acknowledge the real costs these services impose on Boston.”

Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata, who chairs the subcommittee that has held hearings on the mayor’s proposed ordinance, said the new tax is “currently on the table as a possible addition” to the measure, which needs Council approval.

“It would theoretically be a 15-cent per order fee that would help cover costs of the enforcement of the ordinance,” Coletta Zapata told the Herald.

Stephen Clark, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, sent letters to Mayor Michelle Wu and the 13 city councilors last Thursday with the group’s concerns about the fee, which had been discussed that morning by the Council as part of a working session it held to tweak the ordinance.

“This will make delivery more expensive in the city and discourages consumers from ordering and doing business with restaurants in Boston,” Clark wrote.

Advertisement

“During a time when our attorney general is looking to limit additional fees and surcharges, it does not seem like the government should be adding new fees to Boston residents,” his letter states.

Clark’s letter also lists a number of concerns the Restaurant Association has with the mayor’s ordinance, which it says will lead to “rising delivery costs” and “increased red tape” and pose a “threat to restaurant and consumer privacy” through its data-sharing requirements.

“The proposed ordinance,” Clark wrote, “is intended to alleviate traffic congestion, but enforcing existing regulations will have a far greater impact. This proposed ordinance … does little to help the problem at hand and will only hurt our small local businesses and consumers who rely on third-party deliveries.”

In a phone interview, Clark clarified that the Restaurant Association is not necessarily opposed to the ordinance as proposed by the mayor. He said the group is open to “commonsense regulations going into effect” and conversations with city officials to tweak the measure’s language to address its concerns.

The Restaurant Association is staunchly opposed, however, to the potential new delivery fee being discussed by the City Council, Clark said.

Advertisement

“I wasn’t bashing the mayor,” Clark said. “I should have just CC’d the mayor. We were writing it to the City Council because they’ve had multiple working sessions on this, and the fee has originated from the City Council, not the mayor.”

Wu’s office said “the mayor did not include any fee or tax on restaurant orders in the original ordinance filed.”

The city has been in close conversation with the delivery companies and advocates to protect consumer privacy, the mayor’s office said.

“This ordinance holds large, national delivery companies accountable and will ensure drivers have insurance coverage while making our streets safer for everyone,” a Wu spokesperson said in a statement.

“Data gathered will help the city better plan for food delivery impacts, which has resulted in an alarming increase of dangerous driving, worsened congestion and double parking — all negatively impacting resident experiences and business operations.”

Advertisement

“We are optimistic that the final bill will earn broad support from neighborhood residents and businesses,” the Wu spokesperson said.

Coletta Zapata said the Council would have to take action on the mayor’s ordinance, and any potential amendments including the new fee, by the first week of April to comply with the 60-day order.

If the Council chooses to take no action, it would go into effect, with the language proposed by the mayor. A vote would have to be taken at the next weekly meeting, on April 2.

“Although I support much of the proposed ordinance, I will vote against it based on a new tax that will ultimately be passed on to restaurants and the public,” Councilor Ed Flynn said in a statement to the Herald. “It’s not the time for a new tax in Boston. We must demonstrate fiscal discipline and responsibility.”

Per the language of the amendment, the Boston Transportation Department “may periodically review and adjust the delivery fee, subject to a review and approval by the City Council, to ensure it remains effective.”

Advertisement

Durkan acknowledged that there’s a “clear debate about who bears these costs,” but said the “hearing really illuminated the Council’s commitment to exploring all avenues to prevent these fees from being passed onto local businesses or delivery drivers.”

“We should ensure a fair and balanced approach that holds third-party delivery companies accountable while protecting our local economy,” Durkan said.

Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said he wasn’t buying it.

“Some Boston city councilors have never seen a tax or fee they don’t like,” Craney told the Herald. “In this case, they want to nickel and dime consumers which will only increase the price of food.

“City councilors who favor this have completely lost their bearing,” he added. “Elected officials should not be justifying any taxes or fees that will drive up the cost of food.”

Advertisement

Originally Published:



Source link

Boston, MA

Who Will Form the Boston Bruins’ Future Core?

Published

on

Who Will Form the Boston Bruins’ Future Core?


The Boston Bruins increasingly relied on a new wave of young players in the 2025-26 season. Their speed and energy became an intrinsic part of the team’s structure, complementing a more experienced core. Boston entered the offseason on May 2 after a 4-1 loss to Buffalo in Game 6 of the first round. Despite this, […] The post Who Will Form the Boston Bruins’ Future Core? appeared first on The Lead.



Source link

Continue Reading

Boston, MA

Updating Red Sox’s Playoff Chances: Numbers Never Lie | NESN

Published

on

Updating Red Sox’s Playoff Chances: Numbers Never Lie | NESN


So you’re saying there’s a chance? Despite an abysmal start to the 2026 season, the Boston Red Sox remain in the mix for a playoff spot. At least according to FanGraphs, who gives the club a 27.1% chance of reaching the postseason.

Boston’s likely path to October means winning the wild card. FanGraphs gives the Red Sox a 26.1% chance of winning an American League wild card. The team currently sits threes games back of the third and final wild card, despite a record of 25-33.

Don’t look for a division title this year in Beantown. FanGraphs gives the Red Sox a 1% chance of winning the AL East. Which makes sense, since the team currently sits in last place, 11.5 games behind the first-place Tampa Bay Rays.

But SI’s Tom Verducci and Will Laws thinks Boston has a much tougher chance of making the playoffs. In their deep dive of the postseason, the pair came up with what they call the “Line of Doom.” According to their research, a team that starts “no better than 23–31 and your season is almost over only one-third of the way through the schedule.” Here’s why.

Advertisement

“In the wild card era (since 1995), only one team made the postseason starting with less than 22 wins in the first 54 games, the 2005 Astros (20–34). Of the 231 teams to start 23–31 or worse, only seven made the playoffs—once every 33 times,” Verducci and Laws note.

“Since the postseason field expanded in 2022, 31 teams began 23–31 or worse. Only one, the 2024 Mets (22–32), made the playoffs. That leaves such slow starters with a 1 in 31 chance—virtually the same as the larger sample size,” the pair add.

“The fact is one-third of the season does a good job separating pretenders from contenders. And as the calendar flips to June, understand that the playoff spots won’t change very much. In the four seasons with 12 playoff spots up for grabs, teams in playoff position when May ended kept a playoff spot 73% of the time—35 of 48 teams,” Verducci and Laws conclude.

So what does this have to do with the Red Sox, you ask? It’s Boston’s record after 54 games: 23-31. The “Line of Doom.”

More MLB: Red Sox Legend Backs ‘Worried’ John Henry

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Boston, MA

Red Sox, Craig Breslow Under Fire From Ex-Boston Pitcher’s Dad

Published

on

Red Sox, Craig Breslow Under Fire From Ex-Boston Pitcher’s Dad


What should have been a quiet off-day for the Boston Red Sox has devolved into chaos.

Chief baseball officer Craig Breslow was the subject of a profile article in The Boston Globe that didn’t paint a sunny picture of his tenure, including a tough nugget about his relationship with legend Theo Epstein. But Breslow’s harshest critic of the day was probably the father of one of his ex-players.

St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Hunter Dobbins made his second major league appearance on Sunday since being traded from the Red Sox in the deal that brought Willson Contreras to Boston. After Dobbins pitched well and featured his sinker more than expected, his father Lance Dobbins took to social media to excoriate the Red Sox and Breslow.

Advertisement

Lance Dobbins’ latest comments harsher than the first

May 31, 2026; St. Louis, Missouri, USA; St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Hunter Dobbins (40) pitches against the Chicago Cubs during the ninth inning at Busch Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Jeff Curry-Imagn Images | Jeff Curry-Imagn Images
Advertisement

We covered Lance Dobbins’ initial comments from late Sunday night that seemed to be directed at the Red Sox organization already on Boston Red Sox On SI. But on Monday evening, the elder Dobbins reentered the fray to absolve pitching coach Andrew Bailey of any blame, effectively throwing Breslow under the bus.

Advertisement

When asked if Breslow replacing Chaim Bloom as chief baseball officer led to Hunter throwing less sinkers and fewer four-seam fastballs in the Red Sox organization, Lance responded with this:

Advertisement

“Yes! In Bailey’s defense he wanted the addition, but people behind computers make those decisions. The coaching staff is literally working with one hand tied behind their backs. Driveline is the answer to everything, but winning games!

“Ask yourself, why are so many of our guys always injured (pitchers and position players), it’s not by pure bad luck. Pitchers are having constant issues and hitters are always hurting hands and wrist. It’s not a league wide problem. It has to be fixed or we’ll never win because half of our starters will always be on the IL.”

That last point has to hit home for the Red Sox because star outfielder Roman Anthony (who debuted in the majors a couple of months after Hunter Dobbins) has now had two long-lasting injuries that occurred on swings — an oblique strain in September that ended his season prematurely, and a partially torn finger ligament that has held him out of action since May 4, with no end in sight.

Monday just wasn’t a good day in the public relations department for the Red Sox front office, or for Breslow in particular. But it’s worth noting that Dobbins has only made two appearances in a Cardinals uniform, allowing four earned runs in eight innings, taking a loss and earning a save.

Advertisement

Add us as a preferred source on Google



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending