When one thinks of government meetings, they often imagine boring discussions about obscure regulations that take way too long to work out and are hard for laymen to get very excited about.
In other words, they think of Bentonville Planning Commission meetings.
We’re not saying the work of such panels isunimportant, but it is generally thankless, often tedious and rarely likely to draw an invigorated crowd.
That is, unless alcohol is involved.
And it was involved at a recent meeting of the Bentonville Planning Commission, not asa cold adult beverage being served up to help lubricate the machine of government, but as an unintended subject of a change to Bentonville’s land-use map. Such maps identify current uses of land within the city and project future anticipated uses in general terms.
The meeting included an amendment to the city’s land-use map to bring it up to date with current zoning. About 100 residents, however, showed up ready to talk (or shout) about a liquor store approved by the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board at Southwest Bright Road and Southwest Regional Airport Boulevard. The site is zoned neighborhood commercial. A liquor store would require a general commercial zoning.
The strange thing was, a rezoning for the property wasn’t even on the Planning Commission’s agenda. But when 100 people show up ready to talk about something, we suppose it’s best to listen. Residents from the area near the proposed liquor store site criticized developer Josh Kyles and urged the planning commission to shut down consideration of the liquor store.
Opponents cited traftc concerns - a legitimate discussion for any zoning decision, if there had been one planned last week - but also ventured into their concerns over the morality of consuming alcohol. Mark Snodgrass, a pastor at Bentonville Church of the Nazarene, said alcohol harms individuals and a liquor store will harm the community. One speaker compared liquor stores to sex offenders living nearby.
The commission, noting the land-use map had no bearing on any future decisions regarding the liquor store, voted 5-2 to adopt the land-use amendment. Critics pledged “we’ll be back.”
We’re sure they will be, but hopefully it will be at a meeting at which the liquor store is the subject.
When that happens, here’s our advice: Forget about the moral implications of alcoholic beverages.
Here’s why: Benton County voters have already rendered their decision about whether liquor stores will exist. They said yes. The moral arguments against demon rum did not carry the day. No successful argument about the location of a liquor store will be based on general opposition to the sale of spirits.
Opponents are well within their rights to argue against a location of any commercial venture based the impact the business will have on the surrounding area. The traftc concerns are worthy of discussion and are probably the most signifi cant issue when it comes to city considerations.
Some may swear “the South will rise again,” but we’re pretty sure the Civil War was fought and decided. Likewise, the battle against the sale of liquor in Benton County is over. Critics can continue trying to wage the fight, but they shouldn’t be surprised when the rest of the community moves on.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/21/2013