Legislature might lift cap on liquor licenses?
The number of licenses a city or county may have is tied to population.
Dave Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said some consider the issuance of liquor licenses a quality-of-life issue.
“More and more cities are finding the kind of restaurant chains they want to attract won’t come in unless they can offer a full-beverage menu,” Owen said.
and...Caren Assman, executive director of the South Dakota Retail Liquor Dealers Association, said her organization opposes any expansion of the availability of liquor licenses because licenses already in hand are valuable.
“My businesses have invested in that liquor license. To just open up the cap would be like pulling the rug out from underneath their investment,” Assman said.
I'm tossed on this one. I certainly wouldn't want to harm small businesses. But the liquor license monopolies granted in this state have always mystified me. Businesses have the ability in South Dakota to transfer this license (with city approval) to wholly unrelated entities for cash, making it a marketable commodity going to the highest bidder, as opposed to the best qualified. Plus, it's a very limited commodity, giving it great value.
Comments
I think the legislature should give first class municipalities the right to issue 1 extra license per 10,000 of population - but sell the new licenses at market value. All liquor licenses should be sold at market value.
Something on which PP and I tend to agree!!
Why is it that if I want to open a barbershop, I need a barbers license, a sales tax license, and a place to do business but if I want to open a liquor store I need to PURCHASE a liquor license unless the municipality has one available?
It doesn't make any sense to me. And it surely flies in the face of free enterprise.
Of course, the powerful liquor lobby is going to be against it.
I don't have any objection to the municipality being involved in granting liquor licenses to be sure that the holders are of good character.
I don't object to the municipality being able to manage location via their zoning power.
They have a lot of loans out there that are based on the current value of those licenses.
The current "system" of granting liquor licenses is an antiquated mess. No one should count on the bankers to maintain status quo. Let the liquor lobby stand on its own.
It's time for the cities and economic development folks to take back control, in my personal opinion. Past that, I'm interested to see how many of the right wingers are really for the free market/capitalist interests.
The owners of those licenses see them as an asset, and if the cities are allowed to flood the market with new licenses, they will lose most of their value.
This is an attorney's wet dream. It would be a clear case of a government taking, and look for law suits all over the state.
I'm all for more restaurants, but asking the legislature to throw out the old system isn't going to happen.
The best course of action would be to come up with a non-transferable license that would only be issued to businesses that generate most of their revenue through food sales.
Our legislators are good Christian people. They know how devastating liquor is to the individual and family.
Being good Christians, our legislators won't allow liquor licenses to expand beyond what they are now!
Every church in South Dakota is going to come out against this proposal!
If you are a true Christian, you must stand up against an expansion of a policy that destroys lives and families!
Say "No" on lifting of the cap on liquor licenses! It's the Christian thing to do!
It will be interesting to see what legislators come out in favor of destroying lives and families!
We are watching! We are not going to let you talk the talk about being of “good Christian moral values”! We are waiting for you to prove it!
People in smaller communties don't have the option to go to a bar without smoking and this would create that opportunity. I don't go to the bars anymore because I don't want to smell like a cigarrette and there are a lot of people that feel the same way so the business is lost anyway.
I thought your causes this year were going to be trying to ban cohabitation of unmarried people, banning contraceptives, banning abortion, banning premarital sex, and mandating weekly church attendance. Your plate is pretty full with these already.
I am convinced that if the majority of the world were poor Christians instead of Muslims and if Muslims were a rich minority instead of Christians that you and your ultra-religious ilk would be terrorists.
I'm not in favor of unlimited licenses, I don't like the idea of economic development being so closely tied to liquor. If your community really needs another restaurant, someone will open it. I've not seen one SD town lacking for a bar that really wants one.
Even if a license is available from the city, doesn't it still cost money? They're never free, right? I could see a modest increase in number of licenses do to population gains, but not opening it wide up.
If an establishment that holds a county issued license is annexed into the city, that license is grandfathered into the city, so the city actually ends up with more liquor than they are actually alloted.
Oh yes, the county can then issue another license to replace the one that went into the city.
The end result should be a huge increase in sales tax revenues and eveyone being happy. Of course there will be those current license holders who want a monopoly for business. Don't we all wish it worked that way? Unfortunately all of the rest of us have to abide by competition and free enterprise.
They have catering liquor licenses and special event liquor licenses too. They must be really running amuck in that State.
South Dakota needs to be in the 21st century, not the 1920's.
Great idea. Hopefully those who propose this will consider your idea. Im only half-hearted that they should recv money back. The monopolies that exist in holding these and selling at a premium do nothing but hurt competition and stand in the way of free enterprise.
The religious right won't have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of this bill.
The liquor retailers and the banks will be the biggest influences that might get the idea killed.
Require licenses for bartenders and waitresses/waiters in liquor establishments that also require some investigation of person and all license revocation for serving anyone already intoxicated or anyone on the list of alcoholics, or to any woman obviously pregnant.
As for VJ's rant about "every church in South Dakota coming out against this," I think he's overlooking two important details:
1. Not "every church in South Dakota" believes the exact same thing. I can think of many, many churches who wouldn't be opposed to lifting the cap.
2. Jesus came in pretty handy when the newlyweds in Canna ran out of wine:) While alcoholism can be difficult for families, a desperate alcoholic can easily go to the local grocery store to get a six-pack. The liquor license cap doesn't curb alcoholism; all it does is curb economic growth.
Also why is hard liquor limited and not beer and wine? Figure that one out. Can you only get drunk on liquor..no.