Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
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.
“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.
“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.
“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.”
“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.”
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.”
Originally Published:
Stay up to date with everything Boston. Receive the latest news and breaking updates, straight from our newsroom to your inbox.
Local News
A Boston nightclub where a woman collapsed on the dance floor and died last month will have its entertainment license reinstated after the Boston Licensing Board found no violations Thursday.
Anastaiya Colon, 27, was at ICON, a nightclub in Boston’s Theater District, in the early hours of Dec. 21 when she suffered a fatal medical episode. Following the incident, her loved ones insisted that the club’s staff did not respond professionally and failed to control crowds.
City regulators suspended ICON’s entertainment license pending an assessment of any potential violations. During a hearing Tuesday, they heard from attorneys representing the club and people who were with Colon the night she died.
As EMTs attempted to respond, crowds inside the club failed to comply with demands to give them space, prompting police to shut down the club, according to a police report of the incident. However, the club and its representatives were adamant that staff handled their response and crowd control efforts properly.
Kevin Montgomery, the club’s head of security, testified that the crowd did not impede police or EMTs and that he waited to evacuate the club because doing so would have created a bottleneck at the entrance. Additionally, a bouncer and a bartender both testified that they interacted with Colon, who ordered one drink before collapsing, and did not see any signs of intoxication.
Angelica Morales, Colon’s sister, submitted a video taken on her phone to the board for them to review. Morales testified Tuesday that the video disproves some of the board’s claims and shows that ICON did not immediately respond to the emergency.
“I ran to the DJ booth, literally bombarded everybody that was in my way to get to the DJ booth, told them to cut the music off,” Morales said. “On my way back, the music was cut off for a minute or two, maybe less, and they cut the music back on.”
Shanice Monteiro, a friend who was with Colon and Morales, said she went outside to flag down police officers. She testified that their response, along with the crowd’s, was inadequate.
“I struggled to get outside,” Monteiro said. “Once I got outside, everybody was still partying, there was no type of urgency. Nobody stopped.”
These factors, along with video evidence provided by ICON, did not substantiate any violations on the club’s part, prompting the licensing board to reinstate their entertainment license at a subsequent hearing Thursday.
“Based on the evidence presented at the hearing from the licensed premise and the spoken testimony and video evidence shared with us from Ms. Colon’s family, I’m not able to find a violation in this case,” Kathleen Joyce, the board’s chairwoman, said at the hearing.
However, Joyce further stated that she “was not able to resolve certain questions” about exactly when or why the club turned off the music or turned on the lights. As a result, the board will require ICON to submit an emergency management plan to prevent future incidents and put organized safety measures in place.
“This plan should outline detailed operational procedures in the event of a medical or any other emergency, including protocols for police and ambulance notification, crowd control and dispersal, and procedures regarding lighting and music during an emergency response,” Joyce said.
Though the club will reopen without facing any violations, Joyce noted that there were “lessons left to be learned” from the incident.
“This tragedy has shaken the public confidence in nightlife in this area, and restoring that confidence is a shared obligation,” she said. “People should feel safe going out at night. They should feel safe going to a club in this area, and they should feel safe getting home.”
Keeana Saxon, one of three commissioners on the licensing board, further emphasized the distinction Joyce made between entertainment-related matters and those that pertained to licensing. Essentially, the deciding factor in the board’s decision was the separation of the club’s response from any accountability they may have had by serving Colon liquor.
“I hope that the family does understand that there are separate procedures for both the entertainment and the licensing, just to make sure that on the licensing side, that we understand that she was only served one drink and that it was absolutely unforeseeable for that one drink to then lead to some kind of emergency such as this one,” Saxon said.
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
In the middle of Michelle Wu’s orchestrated inaugural celebration, prosecutors described a senseless hospital horror that unfolded at Boston Medical Center – a rape of a partially paralyzed patient allegedly by a mentally ill man allowed to freely roam the hospital’s hallways.
It happened in September in what is supposed to be a safe haven but too often is a dangerous campus. Drug addicts with needles frequently openly camp in front of the hospital, and in early December a security guard suffered serious injuries in a stabbing on the BMC campus. The alleged assailant was finally subdued by other security guards after a struggle.
In the September incident, prosecutors described in court this week how the 55-year-old alleged rapist Barry Howze worked his way under the terrified victim’s bed in the BMC emergency room and sexually assaulted her.
“This assault was brutal and brazen, and occurred in a place where people go for help,” Suffolk County prosecutor Kate Fraiman said. “Due to her partial paralysis, she could not reach her phone, which was under her body at the time.”
Howze, who reportedly has a history of violent offenses and mental illness, was able to flee the scene but was arrested two days later at the hospital when he tried to obtain a visitor’s pass and was recognized by security. Howze’s attorney blamed hospital staff for allowing him the opportunity to commit the crime and some city councilors are demanding answers.
“This was a horrific and violent sexual assault on a defenseless patient,” Councilor Ed Flynn said. “The safety and security of patients and staff at the hospital can’t be ignored any longer. The hospital leadership must make immediate and major changes and upgrades to their security department.”
Flynn also sent a letter to BMC CEO Alastair Bell questioning how the assailant was allowed to commit the rape.
Where is Wu? She was too busy celebrating herself with a weeklong inaugural of her second term to deal with the rape at the medical center, which is near the center of drug-ravaged Mass and Cass.
If the rape had happened at a suburban hospital, people would be demanding investigations and accountability.
But in Boston, Wu takes credit for running the “safest major city in the country” while often ignoring crimes.
Wu should intervene and demand better security and safety for the staff and patients at BMC.
Although the hospital is no longer run by the city, it has a historic connection with City Hall. It is used by Boston residents, many of them poor and disabled or from marginalized communities. She should be out front like Flynn demanding accountability from the hospital.
Boston Medical Center, located in the city’s South End, is the largest “safety-net” hospital in New England. It is partially overseen by the Boston Public Health Commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor.
BMC was formed in 1996 by the Thomas Menino administration as a merger between the city-owned Boston City Hospital, which first opened in 1864, and Boston University Medical Center.
Menino called the merger “the most important thing I will do as mayor.”
When he was appointed CEO by the hospital board of trustees in 2023, Bell offered recycled Wu-speak to talk about how BMC was trying to “reshape” how the hospital delivers health care.
“The way we think about the health of our patients and members extends beyond traditional medicine to environmental sustainability and issues such as housing, food insecurity, and economic mobility, as we study the root causes of health inequities and empower all of our patients and communities to thrive,” Bell said.
But the hospital has been plagued by security issues in the last few years, and a contract dispute with the nurses’ union. The nurses at BMC’s Brighton campus authorized a three-day strike late last year over management demands to cut staffing and retirement benefits.
Kirsten Ransom, BMC Brighton RN and Massachusetts Nurses Association co-chair, said, “This vote sends a clear message that our members are united in our commitment to make a stand for our patients, our community and our professional integrity in the wake of this blatant effort to balance BMC’s budget on the backs of those who have the greatest impact on the safety of the patients and the future success of this facility.”
2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
Power bank feature creep is out of control
Defensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
Viral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
Pat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
Oregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
Nebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
Damon Wilson II, Missouri DE in legal dispute with Georgia, to re-enter transfer portal: Source