Liquor-logical leader needed
Newly coined senator and committed conservative Steve Urquhart seems to be testing the water on taking a role in liberalizing Utah's liquor laws.As we roll into the 2009 session, Senate President Mike Waddoups has made it clear he will resist Gov. Jon Huntsman's call to abolish the so-called "club" memberships required to get a hard drink in Utah.
Urquhart blogs:
A strong voice and a measured approach would be helpful. The possibilities between the two extremes of abolishing private club laws and doing nothing are considerable.Unfortunately, Urquhart, who is more thoughtful and energetic than the average lawmaker, doesn't seem willing yet to provide that strong and measured voice.
I’m not convinced that Utah’s current private club law is the best way to accomplish those policy concerns . . .
Utah has improved its alcohol laws over the past 6 years, . . . We're a better place, because of it. I am hopeful that progress on this front will continue.His blog entry does touch, however, on a topic that has not been explored much in the liquor debate: local control: Let cities and/or counties decide how and if booze is sold? Salt Lake City and Park City, for instance, could eliminate club rules to cater to their tourist trade and towns like Highland-Alpine could ban alcohol altogether.
Like the Lege is going to let that happen.
4 Comments:
Ha, county's rights vs state's rights, a Republican approach to the interesting liquor laws. I actually have to agree with Urqhart's unusual idea. Letting counties decide makes a lot more sense than just blanketing everyone...And it may actually help a move to abolish club fees for areas more likely to imbibe like Park City and Salt Lake.
Um, abolishing private club memberships is not an "extreme" position, it is the position taken by every other state in the country.
Ha, county's rights vs state's rights, a Republican approach to the interesting liquor laws.
Whoa Nellie! Giving local governing bodies of counties/cities the power to ban the service of alcohol altogether has the potential to cause inequitable economic hardship on restaurant owners in the areas that opt to go "dry". We are talking about the slippery slope toward prohibition here! For those restaurants currently licensed to serve alcohol (even with the current restrictions), alcoholic beverage sales likely account for a good chunk of their revenues - not to mention that their patron base has opted to dine there possibly with the availability of alcohol in mind...patrons who might very well be willing to drive a few extra miles to a "wet" community, if their local one opts for "dry". At least in the current form, all Utah establishments are on a level playing field! How about a more temperate version of the proposal: Give local govt the power to decide between a) staying with the current liquor license/law set up (so as not to disrupt already existing business patterns) or b) opting to lift the restrictions. I don't thing Option c) Allowing an outright ban on serving alcohol, should be on the table as it has the potential to demolish many a small hard-working restaurant business. We should be working to PRESERVE jobs and the small business segment in this economy - not to hamstring it more!
Post a Comment
<< Home