The Colorado Legislature passed a compromise bill in the waning hours of the legislative session, which if signed into law, would make a bad situation even worse. The last-minute bill requires our antiquated liquor laws to favor one competitor over another for the next 20 years.
Grocery store chains in Colorado are pushing for a ballot initiative in November that would give them the right to sell beer and wine in more than one location. Currently, a grocer can apply for a liquor license, but only in one store throughout the state. The exception is the sale of so-called "near beer" with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent or less.
These restrictions benefit the mom-and-pop liquor stores to the detriment of chain groceries. Existing Colorado law sides with David, not Goliath.
The heart of the compromise is a 20-year prohibition of real competition. The bill establishes a complicated set of conditions that grocery stores must meet before they can compete freely. The worst condition is a geographic monopoly that can be overcome only if a liquor store decides to sell their business to a grocer. Senate Bill 197 continues to favor David.
My view is that Colorado's alcohol laws are mired in Prohibition-era politics of the previous century and should be overhauled way beyond letting grocery store chains sell real beer and wine. For example, Colorado law requires a local licensing board to judge a person's "moral character" and deny a license if the applicant doesn't measure up. Should a licensing board ask an applicant if he or she ever committed adultery? That act is immoral and sinful but, in Colorado, it's not illegal.
The state also requires a liquor applicant to declare their race, even though this is not required for a Colorado birth certificate or a driver's license. This information is not needed for identification and is irrelevant in determining a person's worthiness to obtain a liquor license.
Government has two legitimate interests in controlling alcohol sales: It should prohibit the sale of alcohol to minors and it should prohibit the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons. Alcohol sales absolutely should be licensed and regulated.
Beyond that, government has no business favoring one seller over another regardless of the size of the seller. Government should treat big business the same as small business and vice versa. Its role is to make sure there is a level playing field. The marketplace should pick winners and losers.
However, the compromise bill specifically requires a liquor applicant to prove there is an unmet need in the neighborhood before a new license can be granted.
It seems to me that if anyone wants to risk money to compete in the marketplace, then by definition, there is an unmet need. The person risking money certainly thinks so. Why should government determine "need" when entrepreneurs and consumers can do it far better and much more efficiently?
The compromise legislation is not in the best interests of citizens, voters or consumers. The State of Colorado should not favor David or Goliath. Let them battle. I think there is a good chance that everyone will win, especially the consumer.
The proposed legislative compromise does not pass the smell test and I hope Gov. John Hickenlooper signs his name on the line that says "veto." Protecting the special interests of some by prohibiting competition from others is not the proper role of government.
Jerry Presley is a former city council member and served on the local liquor licensing board in Greenwood Village. Visit his website at www.JerryPresley.com.
from Lakewood Sentinel - Latest Stories http://lakewoodsentinel.com/stories/Legislature-on-wrong-side-in-the-beer-war,215449
No comments:
Post a Comment