Nine anonymous comments were posted online recently, regarding the Green Street Caf losing their liquor license due to the failure of the owners to fix several fire code violations and it’s likely more are on the way. Collectively this represents an unfortunate development for Northampton as the next chapter regarding the uncertainty and repercussions of Smith expansion is unfolding before us.
I am a sympathizer regarding the plight of the Green Street neighborhood and haven’t personally spoken with Caf owners or Smith College officials regarding the failure to comply with safety codes but I offer this: according to Rachel Hanley in a March 1, 2007 Gazette article, Green Street Caf ’s license suspended, “As the new landlord, Smith college now must fix the building-related violations, and Sielski (co-owner Caf ) is responsible for others, such as installing a red strobe light outside and replacing a heat detector in the kitchen. A(n un-named) college official told the commission that problems could be resolved within the next two weeks.” (Note: Apparently when it was learned that in addition to the Caf owners, that Smith College is (as was the previous landlord) also responsible for some of the violations, the placement of the Caf liquor license issue coverage was moved below the fold and the boldness of its headline was significantly diminished from one article to the next.)
Read Fred Contrada’s article on the topic for the Springfield Republican here.
This is serious and I can only speculate at this time that investing money into property owned by another while understanding that the future of the Caf was in doubt has contributed to the delayed action on the part of Cafe owners. While this case represents a sad and potentially dangerous turn of events for patrons of the Caf that merits a closer look accompanied by explanation, today I write regarding use of the Internet.
Theoretically, all of the remarks below could be from the same person. Though I feel valid points have been raised, something has been lost due to the nature and method of this discourse as it’s easy for someone to criticize anonymously from behind a moniker. Observing the consequences of their remarks from afar, this constitutes civic voyeurism combined with disengagement for those who choose to involve themselves in the public arena in this fashion, and it can be disturbing and harmful. While many anonymous Internet users are not malicious and the enclosed remarks are not necessarily out of line, the anonymity available does permit people the option to commit libel by defaming, vilifying, or slandering the character of others without repercussions.
I suggest that people be required to use their real identities in order to post commentary, or at least provide their identities to the media outlets publishing their remarks. In this way, like unsigned editorials that are generally attributed to staff at various publications or reporters who protect their sources, there would be a level of accountability that is currently lacking with regards to these anonymous forums. It’s inconsistent that in order to publish a letter-to-the-editor in a publication’s print version a contributor must provide a name and phone number while abiding by a word limit, but online one can post a lengthy diatribe while providing no proof of identity or personal verification. In fact on Gazette’s Talkback a person recently had his identity borrowed and used for commentary while he was out of town. The counterfeited post has since been deleted.
In my view it would be appropriate for government officials to intervene otherwise members of society at large, including children, will continue being subjected to this type of expression. Without enacting new legislation public persons will continue to be subjected to anonymous attacks, whether warranted or not, and our public policies will no doubt be impacted as well. Though I haven’t researched it, government officials appear to be slow in responding to protect the rights of individuals to know their critics and be able to address these commentators openly.
Historically, when I was new to the Internet for a short spell I used a moniker when posting online commentary, though my writing style and choice of topics was the same. Thanks to Bill Dwight, a person you’ll find I sometimes disagree with, I saw the shortcomings in this and chose from that point on to use the name given me by my parents. It has been liberating to do so and I encourage others to follow suit and take ownership of their remarks.
The following commentary is published on Gazette’s Talkback in response to an article: Green Street Caf could have license stripped by Rachael Hanley Staff Writer on February 28, 2007. The Gazette is pay per view otherwise I’d post a link to their story.
“I would guess the cafe owners do not want to put money into the building if they won’t be there for the long haul yet they aren’t doing anything about moving to another location. They need to adhere to building codes regardless of their plight. Bring yourself up to code, or shut your doors, or relocate. Sorry, the reality is painful.
Foolish Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Too bad the safety of Green Street Cafe patrons is not a priority for the owners. Perhaps they should just bite the bullet and relocate… it may be the best thing that ever happened for them.
Patron Wednesday, Feb 28, 2007 at 01:32 PM
I guess the Green Street Cafe doesn’t care about its customers enough to provide adequate emergency access. Too bad. It used to be a good restaurant many years ago.
bg Thursday, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:33 AM”
The following commentary is published on Masslive’s Northampton forum on the same topic: http://www.masslive.com/forums/northampton/
3838. Status of the Green Street Cafe?
by MrsGarden, 2/28/07 10:15 ET
Does anyone know if the Green Street Cafe will remain open on Green Street or move to another location when the Ford Engineering Center is built. I realize they are still open but wonder about their future.
3838.1. looks like they have some issues
by Merrie, 2/28/07 11:01 ET
Re: Status of the Green Street Cafe? by MrsGarden, 2/28/07
with the Fire Department. They have several violations that they have failed to take care of.
3838.1.1. Could be because they’re packin’ their bags.
by HowieStern, 2/28/07 14:20 ET
Re: Status of the Green Street Cafe? by MrsGarden, 2/28/07
I wish they and Smith would settle this and make a statement to the press.
3838.1.1.1. We were there a week or so ago
by MrsGarden, 2/28/07 14:46 ET
Re: Status of the Green Street Cafe? by MrsGarden, 2/28/07
We went to dinner there a couple of Saturdays ago and it was filled with people enjoying there dinner. I too wish they would make some kind of statement as to their situation. Maybe someone who knows will fill us in.
|
3 838.2. City has suspended their liquor by Merrie, 2/28/07 19:07 ET license until certain violations are taken care of. Owner doesn’t want to spend any $$$ until he knows what is happening at that location. |
3838.3. Negligence
by 01060, 2/28/07 21:13 ET
Re: Status of the Green Street Cafe? by MrsGarden, 2/28/07
City should just close the place COMPLETELY until the place is up to code. He didn’t make the repairs because he wasn’t sure if he was staying? That’s total nonsense. That’s like continuing to drive a car that you know is a road hazard because you "may" be selling it. Just waiting for an accident to happen. Total disregard for safety. Shame on him and shame on the city for only suspending the liquor license. All the other customers are now at risk…not just the beer drinkers.
What do you think?
