HOW WE SEE IT: Cities Ponder Alcohol Outlet Restrictions

For better or worse, the regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages rests with the state of Arkansas. Some of our local governments, faced with the fresh concept of alcohol as an open presence in their communities, want to take a little more control into their own hands.

In Lowell, the City Council recently passed new “permission fees” alcohol wholesalers and retailers must pay to do business in the fair city. Lowell and the rest of Benton County, of course, had been “dry” until voters on Nov. 6 jumped at the opportunity to make alcoholic beverages more conveniently available - and taxed - within Benton

For a wholesale outfi t in Lowell, the annual cost for permission to operate there will be $750. It will cost $500 for retail outlets. While other towns have such fees, none of them are so steep.

Also, Lowell aldermen,in a split vote, approved the standard 1,000-feetfrom-a-church-and-school limitation for any sale of liquor for off-premise consumption. That refl ects state law, but the aldermen went further. They established a 50-foot, no-sale zone from churches and schools for businesses that sell beer and wine.

Another example is Bentonville. The city recently took a first look at proposed regulations to aff ect where alcohol-related shops can open their doors to a willing public. Like Lowell, the 1,000-foot minimum recognized by the state is part of Bentonville’s initial ordinance proposal, but it too goes further.

The idea put forth in a draft ordinance is to require business owners within 500 feet of a cityowned or -maintained park or trail to obtain a conditional use permit from local oft cials.

There is a legitimate question of whether more strict local laws run afoul of the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control board.

Often, added restrictions at the local level are just an attempt to make it more dift cult for legal businesses to operate. We can’t say with certainty Lowell or Bentonville hope to do that, but when a portion of the public makes a monumental shift in public policy, as going from “dry” to “wet” represents, it wouldn’t be hard to believe.

One oftcial said the conditional use permit application would give the city an additional opportunity to evaluate individual sites and hold public hearings.

It also would give those who opposed the legalization of alcohol sales a new opportunity to shoot down establishments that meet every condition of state law.

Michael Langley, head of the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Administration, said he believes any distance requirements beyond the statemandated 1,000 feet are unconstitutional.

“We wouldn’t sue the city,” he told a reporter.

“But we would tell them they’re passing something that’s unconstitutional and could open themselves up to lawsuits from applicants.”

Bentonville’s ordinance would also outlaw driveup windows at locations selling alcohol and set hours of operation as 6 a.m.-10 p.m.

The public voted. These measures appear to put serious constraints on the business operators who can, as of 2013, legally operate within the county.

These communities need to tread very carefully.

Location restrictions should be based on the impact of any business that requires customers who come and go with regularity, but they shouldn’t attempt to restrain activities - beyond what the state does - simply because of the product being sold.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 12/27/2012

Upcoming Events