Boston's tour protectionism

SOME PEOPLE won't take "no" for an answer, nor should they. After hearing a chorus of nays from public officials, local entrepreneur Erroll Tyler is scheduled to file a federal lawsuit today, hoping to end what appears to be Boston's arbitrary prohibition against issuing new sightseeing licenses.

Tyler, a veteran of the transportation trade, has a nice business plan. He wants to use state-of-the-art amphibious vehicles to pick up and drop off passengers in Kendall Square in Cambridge and tour historical sites along a fixed route in Boston and Cambridge. Unlike the so-called duck boats that ply the Charles River, Tyler plans to operate Hydra-Terra vessels, which resemble ordinary buses but are certified by the Coast Guard to operate in open waters. He proposes to enter the Little Mystic Channel in Charlestown to view the USS Constitution and may even extend his tours to the Harbor Islands. But the Boston Police Department, citing a moratorium on new sightseeing licenses, won't cooperate.

Cambridge officials put up similar roadblocks for three years, denying Tyler his necessary jitney licenses. In 2007, the state Department of Public Utilities overruled Cambridge. But the DPU lacks similar jurisdiction over Boston police, according to the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based legal outfit that is bringing suit on behalf of Tyler and his Nautical Tours. What does it say about the climate for small businesses in Boston and Cambridge that a guy with a promising business plan needs to turn to out-of-state libertarians to protect his interests in federal court?

A moratorium on new sightseeing vehicles may have made sense during Big Dig construction. But the Big Dig is over, and so is the need for such stringent traffic precautions. Further, the moratorium appears to have lifted for current operators who were granted 11 new licenses since 2000, according to the lawsuit. That's powerful evidence for the Institute for Justice's contention that the snubbing of Tyler is nothing more than government protection of an "entrenched cartel" favoring the seven operators who now control the 107 sightseeing licenses in Boston.

"Shielding existing companies from competition is the reason behind the Defendants' policy of continuing the moratorium long after the Big Dig has ended," reads the suit against police and the City of Boston.

A Boston police spokeswoman says that the department is reviewing its policy on the sightseeing license moratorium. It should be reviewed, and then lifted. Absent any concern for the health and safety of the public, the moratorium, especially if applied selectively, is little more than a means to tread on the economic liberties of entrepreneurs.