City Council is in the process of considering a change to
the existing ordinance as it relates to the sale of alcohol in non-residential
establishments. There has been some healthy debate on this topic, but the more
debate I hear, the more I fear that most people do not understand what is
really being considered. I also get the impression that even some council
members do not understand this proposal.
There are a handful of restaurants in Union that serve
alcohol; the law allows that, and no one is considering changing that in any
way. To hear people defend this new proposal, though, one would think those of
us in opposition are trying to keep restaurants from serving beer. That is not
the case. We are not pushing to become a dry city, nor are we trying to get
restaurants to stop serving alcohol.
The current law in Union forbids the operating of an
establishment for the primary purpose of
consuming alcohol; the proposal before Council would change that. If the
ordinance is changed it would allow for bars to open within the city; nothing
more, and nothing less. That is why I was shocked to hear council members at
Tuesday’s meeting, saying that if we change this ordinance then we can get
chained restaurants to come here. They already can, and it is mindboggling that
Council doesn’t know that. Restaurants operate for the primary purpose of
serving food, and by law, can serve alcohol. Bars and taverns operate for the
primary purpose of serving alcohol.
Will this bring revenue? Of course. But at what cost? The
state of Minnesota released a fact sheet to see how much revenue was generated
from alcohol, and they found that number to be a staggering $296 million
annually. But Minnesota had the wisdom to also factor in what they had to pay
out as a result of selling alcohol. Here is what it cost them:
After
factoring in alcohol related homicide/suicide, falling and other accidents, drowning
while under the influence, certain types of cancer, liver disease, other
chronic illnesses, vehicular accidents, unintended pregnancies, birth defects,
and alcohol dependence programs, Minnesota found out that they paid out $5.06
billion because of alcohol
sales.
In other words, they took an almost $5 billion loss. These
numbers are admittedly state wide, not city wide, so the numbers aren’t
comparable, but the concept is. Alcohol always costs more than it brings in.
Alcohol always costs more than it is worth.
Let’s not forget that South Carolina leads the nation in vehicular
deaths on country roads. We also lead the nation in DUIs causing vehicular
death and are in the top five of overall DUIs. We have ranked at or near the
top for years. Drunk driving and fatal accidents are directly proportional. Please,
let’s keep that out of our city.
We rank at the top of the vehicular fatality list while Utah
consistently comes in at number 50. When you consider that two-thirds of
Utahans are Mormons who drink no alcohol it is easy to see why they don’t have
problems with drunk driving. Anyone can see the correlation: drinking and
driving leads to innocent people dying.
There are many ways to grow our great city, but a tavern
isn’t one of them. Do we really want to bring in an establishment that exists
for the primary purpose of alcohol consumption, especially just a couple of
hundred yards from our only University, especially in light of our new campus
housing?
The most alarming thing I heard during the meeting was when
someone actually suggested that maybe some of these vehicular deaths were
caused because people have to go to Spartanburg to go to a bar. She said that
if these people could go to bars in Union, then they would have fewer miles to
drive under the influence of alcohol (which, for the record, is a
felony).
If the best argument we can make is that it is better for citizens of Union to drive drunk for shorter distances than driving drunk from Spartanburg, then we really haven't come up with a good reason to pass this ordinance.
A tavern on Main Street will not be a bright spot for our
city. It will be a blight on our city. I applaud Tommy Anthony (District 1) and
Ricky Todd Harris (District 4) for their opposition, and I respectfully ask the
other members to join them and block this measure.
Comments