Restaurants sue Boston for an outdoor dining fee

BOSTON (AP) – The owners of five restaurants in Boston’s North End say in a lawsuit against Mayor Michelle Wu that the city’s $ 7,500 fee for restaurants in the neighborhood that want to offer outdoor dining this summer is unconstitutional.

The four business owners, in their federal complaint Monday, said the fee – which only applies to restaurants in the traditionally Italian district, which attracts tourists from around the world – creates “unfair methods of competition”.

The fee violates the constitutional process and equal rights of restaurant owners, as well as their rights under the trade clause, say the restaurateurs.

The mayor’s office said in a statement that they had no comment. Wu said that because the North End – with its maze of narrow and busy streets – has the highest density of restaurants in the city, fees are needed to address quality of life issues such as traffic, pedestrian access, garbage collection and rodents control.

All four owners said they agreed to pay the fee in protest. One owns two restaurants.

“If the plaintiffs refuse to pay the fees … they will not be allowed to have open dining areas,” the lawsuit said. “Without outdoor dining, the plaintiffs would not be able to compete with other restaurants in the North End that serve tourists.”

The city first allowed restaurants to set up outdoor dining areas on sidewalks and city streets two summers ago to help them stay in business during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outdoor feeding in the neighborhood resumed on May 1.

The city announced the fee in March, but business owners rejected it, calling it unfair because it does not apply to restaurants in other parts of the city.

The city and some restaurant owners announced a compromise in late March that allowed businesses to spread the fee over several months and a plan that allows some restaurants to pay reduced fees based on location, the size of their outdoor dining area and whether have a license for alcohol.

___

This story has been altered to reflect that the four plaintiffs own five restaurants in between.