Williamstown's Lickety Split Closes

By Phyllis McGuireSpecial to iBerkshires
Print Story | Email Story

Residents craving ice cream were greeted with this sign in the window of Lickety Split since Nov. 1.
WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — Rumors began flying this summer but now what the Williams College community and town folk dreaded has come. Lickety Split on Spring Street has closed.

The beloved ice cream shop closed its doors at the end of October but owner Robin Kanelos said she expects the restaurant to reopen in a new location. However, that location is still unknown after the Kanelos' lease expired.

Kanelos did not wish to expand further on the shop's closing but when contacted in September, she said she intended to return to Spring Street. She declined to reveal what steps, if any, she is taking in that direction nor would she say why she was not renewing her lease or if she had even been given an opportunity to do so. The building's owner, Mark Paresky, has not been available to comment.

Recently, Kanelos mentioned that Williams College is helping her find a space to reopen Lickety Space. The only available space on Spring Street as of this moment is 32 Spring St., which was occupied by McClelland's until 2009.  But rumor has it that something else may be opening up on the street.

Loyal patrons of  Lickety Split, the shop best known for its delicious ice cream, including the popular Purple Cow flavor, are more than disappointed that their supply has literally been cut off. One Williams student spoke of the closing of the shop as an "atrocity" and the wife of a faculty member has vowed not to patronize any other ice cream vendors on the street.


The Lickety Split location at the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art is still open.

In September, Kanelos made it clear that since she assumed ownership of the Williamstown Lickety Split eleven years ago, she has operated the business independently of Lickety Split at Mass MoCA.  

"My sister and her husband own the Lickety Split at Mass MoCA," she said.
 
Though mystery continues to shroud the fate of the cozy eatery that offered snacks, soups, sandwiches and salads as well as ice cream, iBerkshires will be sleuthing until it can report the opening of a re-incarnated Lickety Split.


*iBerkshires reporter Andy McKeever also contributed to this article.
If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Letter: Vote No on 'Jungle' Primaries

Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

They don't call them "jungle primaries" for nothing.

Question 3 on the November ballot would trash two-party primary elections and replace them with California-style, chaotic — and extraordinarily costly — "jungle" primaries that would destroy the very political parties that have kept America stable since Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison created them in the 1790s.

Jungle primaries put all candidates, regardless of party, on one ballot with the top two vote-getters facing off in the general election — even if they're from the same party. That would create chaos, but the real issue is money: Jungle primaries give a distinct advantage to candidates backed by corporate money and the super wealthy. In short, jungle primaries move our primaries from the ballot box to big donor meetings long before campaigning even begins.

When something this radical is proposed, you have to look at who's behind it, who's funding it, and ask "why" they are doing it.

Their philosophical guru is Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor who ran for governor in 2022 but couldn't get 15 percent of the Democratic Convention vote to win the party's endorsement.

The money behind this extreme attack on small "d" democratic politics tells us more. With over $5 million in the bank as of Aug. 28, this is a very well-funded campaign — the lion's share of which came from wealthy Boston-area private equity individuals.

Twenty-two private equity executives gave $3.99 million, or 77 percent of all the money from individuals. Current and former Bain Capital executives contributed $1.92 million, and Berkshire Partners executives put up $1.32 million. In short, 22 rich people put up nearly $4 million to change how five million of us vote. Yes, it seems the ultra-wealthy want to destroy the two-party system that has kept our politics stable for 200 years.

View Full Story

More Williamstown Stories