RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Earlier today I was alerted to some disturbing news by local beer journalist Michael Paull. A new Senate Bill (S. B. No. 62) has been introduced that would restrict liquor permits within 500 feet of schools, churches, libraries, playgrounds and parks. State Senator Nina Turner sponsored the bill along with the support of co-sponsors Senator Ray Miller and Senator Sue Morano.
NBC4 also featured the story tonight which highlights a lot of the gray area in the wording of this bill. It’s very loosely written and doesn’t fully explain if existing businesses would be grandfathered into exemption, or if the bill would have an effect on liquor permits for restaurants or grocery stores.
Scott Heimlich, owner of Barcelona, was interviewed in the NBC4 piece and expressed concerned that without the proper wording, the bill could close his restaurant and put him and his 60 employees out of business because of their proximity to Schiller Park.
If you’d like to share your opinions on this proposed legislation, you can find contact info here for State Senators Turner, Miller, and Morano.
Just for fun I called Sen. Turner’s office and mentioned that I had some questions about the bill and was pretty quickly patched through to legislative aide Olga Hash.. She mentioned (several times) that the bill is still being worked out in committee and that point was to not make a blanket resolution, but to address the overabundance of licenses in urban areas.. The Senator’s home district in Cuyahoga County was mentioned by Ms. Hash as having far more licenses than currently needed to serve the population as people have moved from the area since the licenses were allocated.
She did make a point of saying that they don’t want to put existing/long standing businesses in jeopardy. I mentioned that it might be better to look at allowing transfers from areas over-served by licenses to areas that are in need of licenses and Ms. Hash stated that is one of the ides being looked into.
I did distinctly get the feeling that she’s been under fire the last few days..
While I think it’s important to keep the pressure on, all may not be lost..
The Greek Church is on the corner at the CAP, that would mean (HydePark,Mojo,23,Eleven?,Charbar,Novaks, park street,)
ST Mary’s German village, (Mojo max&Ermas,Hausfrahaven?)
Why not reverse the bill and make churches & parks stay away from profitable businesses?
I don’t see this going anywhere with all of these businesses having to close or each individually having a hearing. What a freakin waste of our tax dollars in a strapped economy!
I loved the comment on the NBC4 site blaming this on “liberal progressives.”
Obviously the same kind of liberals who legislate Utah’s liquor laws or who sponsored the temperance movement 100 years ago…
Um, I believe that all sponsors of the bill are Democrats.
The alignment of political factions 100 years ago doesn’t tell one much. A lot has changed in the interim, both in how people think and in the coalitions within each party.
That said, my guess is that the rejection of this bill is going to be fairly bipartisan. Neither party has a monopoly on temperance activists … but neither party has a particularly strong presence of them.
I’m not sure who really determines areas that are ‘over served’.
For a business to exist it must have patrons.
You do not need legislature if there are more licenses than patrons support, the market assures that it equals out.
Great points all – neoprohibitionism is a bipartisan plague, and whether a market is over served or under served is for the market to choose if the product is legal. We do not need Senators of either party deciding whether or not we have too much access to alcohol.
Even if businesses do get grandfathered in, the value of their liquor license will drastically decrease given this legislation, thus lowering the value of our businesses. Our liquor licenses are our most valuable assets much of the time as restaurant fixtures and equipment have very little value.
A lot of people are going to be really hesitant to get into, or remain in, the restaurant business if they have no way of knowing in advance whether or not they meet the bureaucratic standard for what goes with a community’s “ambiance.” At the very least, it’s one more hoop to jump through. At worst–and I’m inclined to believe the worst because of what people on this and other threads have already said about restaurant owners already needing approval from nearby schools and churches–it’s a potentially dangerous political weapon to be used against political foes of the administration in power. How much money would it take to litigate to the hilt whether or not a restaurant “fit” with the community, if the regulator in charge of enforcing this legislation wanted to make someone’s life hell?
Great point Liz about the reduced value of a business if you can’t transfer the License. This was something that I thought of after the call (I hadn’t expected to get a legislative aide, so therefore only had a few questions and points prepared).
I’m pretty far against the idea of another layer of “liquor control” law, In fact I think existing legislation covers this pretty well. The problem the Sen. is discussing could be addressed by a review of permits in the area:
With regard to retail liquor permits, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 4303.29(B)(3), the population of a taxing district determines the number of permits allowed there. This is known as the quota system. If an applicant for a liquor permit meets all of the requirements under law and rule, and if the voters have approved liquor sales in that precinct, and if there are permits available under the quota system, the Division will likely issue an applicant a permit. In addition, Ohio Revised Code Section 4303.29(B)(3)(b) allows liquor permits in an overissued area of the state to be transferred to an economic development project in another area of the state where no permits are available under the quota system.
(From: http://www.com.ohio.gov/liqr/about.aspx)
If she really wants something to legislate on, perhaps allowing unneeded permits to be sold between districts openly might be a good way to let the open market decide how many permits are needed and where…
Why defer to churches? They run one day a week. (Well Sat. afternoon, too, if you’re Catholic and I don’t know – like three days a week if you’re some crazy sort of Protestant.) I mean there aren’t lepers ambling around anymore, maybe churchgoers could unleash some of that compassionate Jesus-example-following on drunks.
do churches need a liquor license to serve the jesus wine?if i remember correctly from my catholic school days, that stuff is about 40 proof. if so, i must wonder: with this legislation, would churches be allowed within 500 feet of themselves?
Let’s not forget the churches who get the special event permits for their summer festivals and other fund raisers…
ETA
(the Catholic churches often have an elementary school attached…)
GViewProgrammer: “The reason Japan has less crime is because of their culture . . . the lack of open container laws correlates to lower crime but it is in no way causation for that lower crime.”
I know it’s a matter of culture. They have lower crime than us, even with less control on alcohol. My point was that increased control on alcohol isn’t going to lower crime, which is this senator’s motivation for the bill. This push for more alcohol control is pointless.
One only needs to look to our own history to realize that increased control does nothing towards crime control.
My Catholic elementary school had fund raisers that included drinking and gambling. :)
My guess is that they were probably quite successful, then. :)
Well between the Irish and the Italian Catholics…
Europe is also having trouble protecting its traditions ( of freedom and ideas that evolved out of western liberal democracy ) against religious prohibitions in many areas of life, as their new immigrant population changes ideology. I wonder if this is something that will happen here?
The basic difference between here and Europe is that the crazy, pissed off folks can actually own their guns.
Don’t see us changing too much anytime soon.
Why in the hell are “churches” lumped in with schools, parks, and libraries? The former three are public spaces funded by taxpayers while churches have nothing to do with government and shouldn’t even be recognized by the government. Lumping in “churches” with the rest of those publicly funded locations makes as much sense as saying they shouldn’t sell alcohol near a Graeter’s Ice Cream store because I like to get my Graeter’s and eat it outside and I don’t want to have to look at or be bothered by some drunk guy while I’m eating my ice cream. How do these people get elected???