Liquor Store Opinion Wayne Howell

Let me begin by stating that I had not come to a firm decision on how I was going to vote on this important issue until just recently.  I think both sides of the debate have been informative, and in their own ways quite valid.  As an elected representative I have had to weigh those arguments and determine which are most compelling, and which have the most bearing on our community. 

The applicants have correctly pointed out that alcohol is readily available in Gustavus - I think Colleen referred to it as a river of booze flowing from Juneau to Gustavus - and that its use, and abuse, are very much a part of community life.  One need only look at the freight room at Air Ex to confirm its abundance, or at the tire tracks leading into the ditches on the morning after a long weekend to recognize some of its problems.  It is also an important consumable sold at many of our lodges, so is already an important component of our economy.  The argument then follows that the community might as well benefit from the sale of alcohol through a package liquor store, through collection of sales tax, that those funds might help City functions, in particular that they might be used to help address some of the issues associated with alcohol consumption.  To me that is the strong point of the argument for approving the license, though to what extent those revenues could meet the need is an unknown. 

I am not the least convinced by the argument that a liquor store will provide much needed jobs.  The applicants themselves deflate that argument, as they have all proven themselves time and again to be intelligent, hard working, innovative and skilled individuals who can make any number of employment schemes work.  Though I have no doubt that the applicants would do a responsible and efficient job of managing a package liquor store, they would not end up in the street if the option were not available to them. The part time jobs that might come from a store do not carry much weight for me either. 

The letters we received in support of having a package liquor in town - about half as many as we received in opposition - tended to lend support on the basis that a store would provide a convenient service.  Other reasons for support tended to be more abstract - the practice of free enterprise being common.  

The many letters and comments we received in opposition provided a number of heartfelt reasons not to approve the license application.  In fact, for me the letters and comments lifted the curtain to a view of Gustavus that I had perhaps chosen to see only on the periphery - accidents and reckless driving, physical abuse (of both self and others), and neglect.  Of course, a valid argument can be made that those conditions exist already, and a liquor store would not change that formula.  I talked to a number of people about how a local liquor store might change this:  would a liquor store affect recovering alcoholics?  No I was told, they will get it if they decide they want it.  What about the young party crowd - will a liquor store make it easier for them to get alcohol?  It might be easier, but if not here, they will figure out another way to get it.  For the casual user, use will remain casual.  In those ways I think a liquor store would maintain the status quo.  

Though alcohol is already here and available through a variety of means, clearly the public comment we have heard indicates that the notion of having a package liquor store crosses some threshold we did not know was there before.  Perhaps it is the fact that it makes alcohol more public.  Or, as many of the letters of support stated, it simply makes it more convenient. 

For me I think it is a combination of that convenience in our most public space, our roads, that tips the balance.  We heard powerful comments against approval of the license from our health care providers, Victoria and Anya Meyer, and from our EMS Captain Tom Berner.  They are the ones who more often than not have to deal first hand with the aftermath of alcohol abuse.  

Of course the counter argument is that we could use tax revenue from the sale of alcohol to bolster our emergency response capability. But that would be a misplaced response.  Rather, the place to apply those funds would be in prevention of accidents, and that means law enforcement.  For me, I equate approval of the liquor license with creation of law enforcement in Gustavus, and I am not ready to take that step.  For that reason, I am going to vote no to the motion and recommend that the City Council write a letter to the ABC stating that we protest the application on the grounds that Gustavus lacks law enforcement and adequate health care, and that those positions are supported by strong public opposition.

That said, I do not think we should abandon this very important debate.  I would like for the City Council to consider developing this issue into a set of questions to be decided by referendum in our upcoming October election.