|
|
|
| |
Saturday, November 7, 2009 | |
|
 OFFICE OF THE
WASHINGTON STATE The regular meeting of the Washington State Liquor Control
Board was called to order at 8:30 a.m., Wednesday, January 6, 1999, at Cavanaugh's on 5th
Ave, 1415 5th Avenue, Seattle, by Board Member Charles F. Brydon. Board Member
Jesse Farias was present. Also in attendance was Kim O'Neal, Assistant Attorney
General. Public Hearing on Proposed Rule Making: Board Member
Brydon welcomed those present to a public hearing on proposed rules regarding alcohol
impact areas and neighborhood livability. He indicated the Board will also hold a public
hearing at 2:30 p.m. in Spokane, and the following morning at 8:30 am. in Yakima Board Member Brydon stated at the specific request of
Governor Gary Locke, the Liquor Control Board has been part of a public-private
partnership known as the chronic public inebriate system solutions committee. This
committee has been chaired by Patrick Vanzo of the Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health, and has brought together a unique array of public and private interests to
craft a multi-dimensional approach to the challenges surrounding chronic public
inebriation. Board Member Brydon stated the proposed rules being
commented on today are but one piece of a mosaic of actions being undertaken to address
this challenge. He stated the proposed rules also address the question of neighborhood
livability, or the impact a licensee may have on the livability and civility of its
community. This rule is intended to address some unfinished business that arose from an
early 1990s Pierce County Superior Court decision. The court asked the Board to define the
basis for addressing neighborhood impacts arising from the sale of alcohol by a single
licensee. Board Member Brydon stated the public hearing will start
with a presentation by the Board's Policy, Legislative, and Media Relations Director, Bill
Daley, and then proceed with public comment. Bill Daley, Director, Policy, Legislative, and Media
Relations. Mr. Daley explained alcohol has been closely regulated in this state since
the end of prohibition. He stated he underscores this premise because it provides both the
source of the Liquor Control Board's power to enact regulations such as these, and the
reason to enact them. Mr. Daley stated today's discussion about the proposed rules should
focus on alcohol, not on other issues that undoubtedly may be mooted, such as musical
taste, the fate of grocery stores, or the effect on law enforcement in first year
communities. He indicated no one who does not sell alcohol will be subject to the proposed
rules. Mr. Daley stated a second premise -- that the reason
alcohol is so closely regulated is that its effect on the behavior of its consumers can
have an impact on the wider community. The context for these proposed rules is provided by
communities where the public behavior of alcohol consumers has impacted the welfare and
safety of the communities. Thirdly, Mr. Daley stated the rules are designed for use
statewide. He indicated they are designed to provide communities the tools they need to
solve problems and address alcohol related issues at the local level. Mr. Daley stated a
one size fits all regulation won't work in communities as diverse as Seattle, Auburn,
Spokane, Tacoma, Yakima or Olympia, all of whom have expressed concerns about these issues
to the Board. He stated in addition to accommodated diversity among communities, the rules
are a framework for local solutions that will not be solved by regulation alone. Unless
there is a concerted effort by communities to solve the problems of public inebriation,
the problems will continue. Mr. Daley indicated that is why the proposed rules clearly
require local involvement, voluntary effort, local community debate, and a local community
response. Mr. Daley stated that were it impossible for communities to
have an impact on these problems, perhaps an undertaking like this would be nearly futile.
However, he stated there are examples of positive impacts in communities where tools like
these have been made available to the local authorities and have been used successfully. Mr. Daley explained the proposed rules are divided into two
parts. One part deals with the creation of alcohol impact areas and the other part deals
with new criteria associated with neighborhood livability. He stated in both of these
parts there are some important provisions that bear noting at the outset.
Mr. Daley stated in closing, he would like to point out
that the proposed rules did not spring to life spontaneously. He indicated they were
brought to you by communities and neighborhoods where alcohol causes real problems. Mr.
Daley stated the proposed rules have been drafted in response to business groups, city
associations, health practitioners, elected officials, and neighborhood leaders who have
asked that the Liquor Board enter into a partnership with them to attack this age-old
problem. Board Member Brydon called for public testimony. The
speakers were given a three minute time limit. Following is a verbatim transcription of
that testimony: Patrick Vanzo, Seattle-King County Department of Public
Health: I'm Patrick Vanzo, I am an employee of King County and I am here at the
request of County Executive Sims to deliver his letter to you, and I ask that you enter it
into the record of these proceedings. I've already given that to Ms. Berntsen. Additional
copies of Executive Sims' letter are available from me upon request. Quoting from Mr. Sims' letter, "Banishment of alcohol
sales and consumption has, for too long, been an under-utilized tool in the array of
responses needed to meaningfully intervene in the lives of those chronically impaired by
alcohol, and the lives of those who are affected by the public behavior of chronic
alcoholics. I believe that these proposed administrative rules are an important step in
the right direction, and I urge the Board to adopt and implement them as drafted." As conveyer of the Chronic Public Inebriate System Solution
Workgroup, I would like to offer this additional comment. We very much appreciate the
reference in both the alcohol impact area section and the neighborhood livability section
to the importance of voluntary agreements necessarily preceding any enforcement action
called for in these proposed WACs. This properly leaves the regulatory provisions only for
those establishments that serve as negative outliners in contrast to community standards
and good business practices. This proposed regulatory effort balances nicely with the
increase in services we have long championed and have been successful in bringing on-line
as evidenced by the opening in the last nine months of the Dutch Shisler Suffering Support
Center, the CPC Safe Haven program, and Harborview Medical Center's Crisis Triage Unit. No
one action is a panacea. Many diverse actions are needed. The proposed regulations are a
piece of the puzzle that is important to our overall success. Finally, we thank you and the Board and your staff for your
work thus far and we'll continue to cooperate with you to make these proposed rules
workable and fair for all parties. The goal is a more humane and a more livable community.
These proposed rules move us incrementally in that direction and we thank you for your
concern. Lauren Bain: I'm Lauren Bain, I'm a King County
resident. I live on Vashon Island. Before I moved to Vashon, I lived in the city of
Tacoma, and I lived near the Lincoln District, which is the venue where the now famous
train massacre occurred. In the center of the Lincoln District of Tacoma there is a state
liquor store, but we never, never had public inebriation in the streets. Tacoma's streets
in Lincoln and Hilltop were never plagued with public drunkenness. I think the reason is
the Tacoma Police. I think they didn't tolerate drunks in the streets during the day and I
think they took them to St. Joseph's, the took them jail, they took them to Western
State... I don't know where they took them. They're not on the street in Tacoma. I don't
know why they're in the streets in Seattle. I don't think it's because alcohol is sold,
because alcohol is sold in a lot of places. This Board has a lot of rule-making authority and that's
appropriate, but they... the standard of review is arbitrary and capricious. The proposed
rules for alcohol impact areas are potentially arbitrary and capricious because there is
no clear, rational basis for why one set of stores can carry certain products and other
stores a few miles away can't. Again, I see it as a police problem, not as a market
problem. Thank you. Tom Beyers, Deputy Mayor of Seattle: I'm Tom Beyers,
Deputy Mayor of Seattle. I'm here on behalf of Mayor Schell. Mayor Schell supports the
proposed rules and I have a letter from the Mayor that I would like to submit for the
record. The Mayor believes that these regulations will be critical tools in keeping our
neighborhoods livable and public places safe. We feel that the Liquor Control Board has
done excellent work in providing a framework in which local communities can work
cooperatively with the Liquor Control Board to address alcohol related problems. We
recognize that these rules are part of a larger picture that has to include treatment of
this disease. The city of Seattle has long been committed to treatment
services for this population, partnering with both the county and the state. Just this
year we've tripled the amount of money in the city budget going to the emergency services
patrol that the city has maintained for 20 years. We are also working better than ever
before with King County on the provision of housing and other support services for those
who are ill from alcohol and other chemical dependencies. We have helped to fund the Dutch
Shisler Center that you heard about previously and we've been part of the good neighbor
agreements that have been involved more than 100 stores in a pilot project that has
involved people in voluntary agreements to accomplish much of what these regulations are
designed to enhance. A great deal of the credit for the success of these agreements goes
to the Korean-American Grocers Association, who were the first signers of these voluntary
agreements. The results of these agreements, which reflect the same content as these
regulations, are quite remarkable. In the First and Second Avenue Business Improvement
Area, the reduction in calls for assistance for public inebriate has dropped from two per
day to two per week as a result of these agreements. When placed in the larger context,
then, of better treatment services, better emergency services, and voluntary agreements,
we believe these rules will help us to create a strong and comprehensive plan for
improving the care of people who are ill from alcohol abuse and making our communities
more livable, and we urge you to adopt them. Thank you. Martin Totusek, Democratic Party and professional
musician: My name is Martin Totusek, I'm a Democratic Party Precinct Committee Officer
here in Seattle and I'm also a professional musician. I have several concerns about these
alcohol impact areas. One, I don't see the need for their implementation. We already have
laws on everything that's addressed here, so it seems like over-regulation. Two, I have several concerns. One, small business that are
minority owned in low income areas could easily be targeted under these things, like
Oscar's was in Seattle's Central District. Two, like Prosecutor Sidran's so-called
"added activities ordinance," both versions, this effectively calls for an
application of the responsibility of individual citizens' own behaviors by making it so
one can over-simplistically blame a host of society's ancient problems on the mere
locations of businesses with liquor licenses, especially in low income areas in our state.
Three, most of the things you list here under livability,
for example, demands on police services, those have occurred in our area in Seattle
because of a massive population increase, and a massive increase in the number of homeless
on our streets as well. On all the things you list here on the whole, for example, the
public elimination of body wastes, fights, chronic public inebriation, obtrusive and
excessive noise, what looks like unlawful drug sales, altercations, harassment, litter,
etceteras; I've seen these for years... no insult intended, but outside of the Washington
State liquor stores in my own neighborhood. I see people taking a leak on the back of the
building all the time. I see all these behaviors. They're already against the law. It's
not necessary to do this. And also because you make things like obtrusive or excessive
noise... Part of the reason there's an issue with noise in Seattle and... is because we
have a massive population increase. We have people crammed closer together than we've ever
been. We were a big town, now we're a big city. We're encountering big city problems that
are inherent to having so many people in the area, and a scapegoat, or to create a
situation where businesses can be scape-goated for this is quite wrong. And I would also like to say that, in conjunction with the
mosaic that was mentioned, I see way too many restrictions being placed from way too many
areas that will affect my own profession as a professional musician and, while you've only
mentioned alcohol, but you list things here that aren't merely alcohol related, but are in
fact, long-term social problems for thousands of years within human societies. So I would
urge you not to start making alcohol impact areas at all. Instead, what we need is
enforcement of the current, existing laws and we need those laws enforced in a fair and
unbiased way, which has not been the case in my own city. I won't speak for the rest of
the state. Thank you for your time. Mark Sidran, Seattle City Attorney: Good morning, my
name is Mark Sidran, Seattle City Attorney. I urge you to adopt these rules. Alcohol is
the most heavily regulated product you can buy because alcohol's abuse is one of the most
serious public health and public safety problems we face. From homelessness to drunk
driving, to assaults and other crimes, alcohol can cause devastating consequences, not
only for those who drink, but for entire neighborhoods. Controlling those consequences is
part of your mission and part of the responsibility that comes with a liquor license. Most
sellers and consumers of alcohol do so responsibly, but some do not. A liquor licensee has
a responsibility not to sell cheap booze to street drunks already dying in the gutter, yet
chronic public inebriates buy thousands of gallons of fortified wine and cheap beer every
month, and every drop comes under a license from the state. This is wrong and these rules
would help stop it Area-wide regulation in particular will be a huge step
forward for two reasons. First, it levels the playing field for all merchants in the area
and removes the competitive disadvantage of doing the right thing. I can't tell you how
many times I have had merchants say to me, "Well, I might be willing to give up
selling these products, but only if all my competitors do likewise. After all, why should
I give up my market share just to see it move down the street?" Why indeed? And
second, area-wide regulation helps prevent simply moving the problem down the street
because it deters other merchants from expanding their sales, lest they be subject to
similar regulations. Liquor licensees also have a responsibility to prevent violence, drug
trafficking, and other criminal behavior associated with their alcohol sales, both on and
off their premises. Now, some will say that they can't control what their customers do off
their premises, but from the nineteenth century to eve of the twenty-first, our laws have
always imposed on alcohol sellers certain responsibilities and, indeed, liabilities for
the harmful behavior of their customers off their premises when the harm flows from their
alcohol sales. And these proposed rules are firmly within that tradition. Those who make a
buck from selling booze should not pass the buck to the police, medics, park staff,
neighbors, and others for all the problems that flow from those sales, and the fact that
the great majority of liquor licensees run their businesses without any problems proves
that it can be done. And these rules simply say that all licensees are expected and, when
necessary, required to be good neighbors. As you know, Oregon adopted similar regulations
several years ago. It's been good for their communities and their alcohol and
entertainment industries have survived. The same will be true here. In conclusion, I want to thank you for your courage and
your leadership in taking these issues up. Norm Maleng, King County Prosecuting Attorney: To
the Members of the Liquor Control Board, I'm Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, and I do
support the proposed rules. Others this morning have already spoken and will continue to
speak on the impact of alcohol related problems regarding quality of life, health and
welfare. You've already heard testimony from the offices of the County Executive and the
Mayor. As prosecutor, I would like to speak to the issue of crime. The proposed rules are a common sense approach to help us
work together to prevent crime. We know that the sale of alcohol can have an impact upon
the quality of life in a commercial business district or in a neighborhood, and that is
what is going to be talked about this morning, but we also know that it can be one factor
in contributing to a criminal environment. All of us have a responsibility to our
neighborhoods and to our commercial district, but I believe that that burden is not being
equally shared. Now, the proposed rules really will not establish any new policy on the
part of the Board. It won't change the underlying principles. But it what does recognize
is that in May of 1999 there can be new techniques in addressing these type of issues to
be of assistance to communities and also to law enforcement. Many of us are aware of some of the new theories of crime
control. You know there were some books written, I think, about fifteen years ago that
introduced some new theories of crime control, and is called the "broken window"
theory. The authors, James Q. Wilson and George Evekellin, not only have vague, but those
were kind of academic treatises, but today we see some of those theories working out in
our communities. And probably the most dramatic example is in New York City under Mayor
Rudy Guilliani. And the whole idea of the broken window theory is that conditions within
communities can have an impact upon crime -- that if you have a broken window and don't do
something about it, it may lead to another broken window, and it can become a
self-fulfilling prophecy that conditions within communities and small things count and
matter. And I think that this is one of the things that is attempted to be doing here. It
isn't a magic solution but it can one thing of many things that can establish an
environment within the community that not only speaks to the health issue, but also to the
crime fight issue. I appreciate the time being provided to address the Board. Thank you. Robin Jenkinson, Tacoma City Attorney: My name is
Robin Jenkinson. I am the Tacoma City Attorney, and as referenced by the Board Chair in
his introductory remarks, these proposed rules are important in part because they reflect
recognition by the Board that the S&S market case, which of course originated in
Tacoma, did not hold that the off premises activities arising outside a licensed premises
could not be regulated. That case, as the Board is well aware, was one where the Liquor
Control Board was reviewing a determination by the administrative law judge that the
license for a convenience store should be removed. The appellate court held, not that off
premises activity couldn't be reviewed, but the administrative law judge had erred in
concluding the city streets and sidewalks adjacent to the premises could actively be
patrolled by the operator of the convenience store. Significantly, in that case, the court
of appeals noted that although there was ample evidence to support the administrative law
judge's conclusion, that it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood and the
neighboring school that liquor not be sold at the convenience store, it simply wasn't the
basis on which the Board had based its decision. I think the city of Tacoma has seen, and I'm sure the Board
has seen in presentations to the Board, that opponents of continued virtually unlimited
activity off the premises will save them, the court of appeals in that case found that
there was no authority to regulate this activity, but in fact in the S&S Market case,
the court was willing and able to recognize that conduct that occurs off the premises can
be controlled by the proper regulation and activity with reference to this. I think your
rule will support that. It will enable local communities to take into consideration the
safety and welfare of their citizenry. May I just briefly quote from Mayor Ebersole's letter in
support of this: "I believe the proposal before you is well-crafted. I am please that
the proposal provides a duty for local governments to work proactively with individual
store owners before taking the more drastic step of designing an alcohol impact area. This
is an even-handed approach and will protect store owners from frivolous claims filed by an
unhappy neighbor yet this proposal still provides local officials with new and important
tools in stopping the spread of neighborhood decay that can occur now because we do not
have the ability to stop the problem at the source." Stopping the problem at its source is what these rules will
enable us to do. It will enable us to control what occurs in the premises, which affects
what occurs outside the premises. Thank you to the Board. Rachel Hawkridge, Libertarian Party: My name is
Rachel Hawkridge and I live in Kirkland and I'm here representing the Libertarian Party of
Washington, and myself. The first thing I'd like to do is ask the Liquor Control Board to
give us who require it a very public hearing. I think that's the only fair and right thing
to do. Secondly, I'm very concerned about this alcohol impact
regulations in that I believe they are constitutionally vague and over-broad. I believe
they smack of economic discrimination. You're not talking about banning Lafeyette and
Chateau Ste. Michelle, you're talking about banning malt liquor and fortified wine, and
what I think is the most important point is that chronic alcoholics are not going to clean
up their act just because their favorite drug is not available. They'll just switch, and
if they're not drinking MD 20/20 and Old English 800, they'll be drinking sterno, vanilla
extract and anything else they can get their hands on. And what's next? After you've
banned cheap malt liquor and fortified wine, are you then going to ban all alcoholic
beverages? And then are we going to move to Nyquil and sterno and model airplane glue and
spray paint? I don't think that it is a workable solution and the problem is chronic
inebriation, it's not cheap liquor. Thank you for your time. Mathew Fox: Hello, my name is Matthew Fox. I am a
resident of the University District in Seattle, and I'm here to express my firm opposition
to the proposed rule changes that are designed to penalize stores and taverns for, quote,
"diversely affecting a neighborhood's quality of life." These rules, while they
may be well-intentioned, are so vague as to raise issues of both selective enforcement as
well as constitutionality. This proposal is not only elitist, it is classist and racist as
well. In Pioneer Square for example, I rather doubt that the
ordinance will be enforced because of the new stadiums, even though sporting events often
result in a large number of intoxicated patrons who break local laws coming to and from
the games, and in clear default in the rules proposed in section WAC 314-12-220. In
addition to someone who enjoys a beer now and then, I find it extremely insulting to be
told that I, as a University District resident, will still be able to purchase a 21.5
ounce bottle of Becks for say $2.50 or more, but that I will no longer be able to purchase
for home consumption a 22 ounce can of Mickey's Malt Liquor or Ice House at a low price of
a $1.00 to a $1.50. This is economic discrimination pure and simple. To the extent that
stores are forced to move lower priced bottled alcoholic beverages from their shelves, low
income drinkers will simply begin to pooling funds and purchasing non-premium brands in
six or twelve packs, or leaving the high impact alcohol areas to buy beer or wine. For
example, two individuals who would each pay, say about a $1.50 for a 40 ouncer of Mickey's
will simply pool their money and pay $2.79 for a 6-pack of Schmidt Ice which has about the
same alcohol content. This is not going to do what it is supposed to do. In addition, they
may also turn further toward crime or panhandling to maintain a now more costly alcohol
addiction. Most importantly, though, and I believe in contradiction to
what the Tacoma City Attorney said, I think this law is flatly unconstitutional. I believe
you cannot hold people responsible for the actions of sentient adult others. I think that
is ridiculous. It is already illegal to sell alcohol to an individual who is apparently
intoxicated. With due respect to the Seattle City Attorney and other elected officials who
support these changes, they were not elected to public office to serve as their brother's
keeper or as my nanny. Due to the long history of arbitrary selected and capricious
enforcement of existing laws by both the Seattle City Attorney and the Liquor Board,
particularly against businesses with patrons and owners of color, these agencies must not
be given greater discretion to unaccountably impose their morality on ever-increasing
numbers of the city, county and state citizens. Will the Liquor Control Board be assuming responsibility
for all of the problems in Washington State that stem from their monopoly on the
distribution and sale of hard liquor? Is the government going to live by the same
standards it intends to impose unconstitutionally on the private sector? I rather doubt
it. I urge you to reject these proposals and to ensure that existing laws are enforced
before you endorse these sweeping, paternalistic and unconstitutional changes. Thank you
very much. Lois Mason, Washington State Licensed Beverage
Association: Good morning, my name is Lois Mason. I represent the Washington State
Licensed Beverage Association. As an association, we strongly object to this new ruling as
proposed. The laws that are included in this are already on the books in the state of
Washington. Any city, any county, can stop a licensee right now from getting a new
license, a new renewal, simply because of their past behavior. For the most part, our industry is very responsible people.
Our job is to, by law, provide a meeting place for people to just come together and have a
good time. The public inebriates are not what you see in our taverns. They are not, by
law, allowed in our taverns because of their drunkenness. You are addressing the symptoms,
not the problem. The problem is the public inebriate. They are the ones that must be taken
care of. Having new laws to change this isn't going to help the poor drunk that's out on
the street. So it's not going to change anything and I ask that you please reject this new
change. Thank you. Charles Booth, Mayor of Auburn: I'm Mayor Booth of
Auburn, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this issue this morning.
I speak for the city of Auburn. I speak in support of the regulations as proposed. First,
allow me to express my sincere appreciation to the Board for its willingness to confront
the important issues at hand. Jurisdictions throughout the state of Washington need
effective tools to successfully manage the impact of alcohol abuse and addiction within
their community. Public and private costs associated with chronic public inebriation can
strangle small and large cities alike. Public costs are reflected in increased public
safety and human services expenditures as well as the deteriorating tax base. Private
costs reflect businesses that may be forced to move or in fact close altogether. The proposed rules effectively address the sale of
alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption and the impacts resulting from such
consumption. In my judgment the rules could be more stringent concerning the chronic
anti-social behaviors within a well defined area which result from consumption of
alcoholic beverages on the premises of a licensee. The rules should be equally stringent
for a licensee in a designated area who sells for off-premises consumption and those who
sell on for premises consumption in error. I do realize that over serving prohibitions are
intended, to an extent at least, to deal with this concern. Cities should have an
opportunity to challenge the liquor license of establishments in an area when it can be
demonstrated clearly that alcohol related offenses have detrimentally impacted the quality
of life in that area. When patrons of liquor establishments engage in anti-social
activities within a well-defined geographic area to such an extent that the behavior then
meaningfully contributes to the decline of business and the quality of life in that area,
then the license of that particular establishment in the established area should not be
supported. They should not serve as the medium for the promotion and transportation of
controlled substances. They should not serve as a site for procurers. They should not
create more public and police responses or violent interactions than other businesses.
Their business should not be permitted to inhibit the growth and expansion of other
legitimate businesses within the same defined area. Again, I wish to commend the Board for its courageous
efforts at intervention, and I do not wish to seem unappreciative or ungrateful. I do,
however, see the negative impact, a problem with few answers. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to address you. Don Loeb, Executive Vice President, Western Washington
Beverage: My name is Don Loeb and I'm an executive vice president for Western
Washington Beverage. We're a wholesale beverage distributor of both licensed and
unlicensed beverages, unlicensed beverages being soda pop, water, etceteras. My first
question to the group is, is there not ample teeth in existing Liquor Board regulations
making it illegal to serve people under the influence? Over service is illegal. It has
always been or it's been illegal for some time and I believe it should remain illegal.
There's teeth in the existing rules to make this work. If a retailer is committed to a
good neighbor agreement, should that individual not be held to the standards of personal
responsibility by which you and I abide? Lastly, we have police, we have Liquor Board and its
licensing powers. I am a seller of licensed beverages, water and soda pop. I employ over
400 people and pay my taxes. I do not believe that I should now be added to the failings
of the law enforcement community. I believe it is unfair to hold me responsible to track
what each individual retailer can and cannot sell. That is not a part of what I do. I
encourage the Board to not pass these rules. Norm Stamper, Chief of Police, Seattle Police Department:
Mr. Brydon and other Members of the Board, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you
about these regulations this morning. I think this issue is complex and I don't mean to
suggest that it is not. I think it's evident that a healthy society, a healthy community
must be a society and a community that rejects racism and classism and discriminatory
police practices. I also believe that healthy communities make room for entertainment,
make room for night life, in their neighborhoods. But I also believe very strongly that personal
responsibility is absolutely essential if we're to be healthy, economically as well as
from the point of view of personal health and safety. And I believe that these regulations
make sense. They make sense from the point of view that voluntary compliance, voluntary
commitment, to safe and healthy practices are, in fact, included in these regulations. I
am absolutely persuaded that there are few things in police work that offer the
predictability and just a little shy of the guarantee that we can improve quality of life
in neighborhoods and communities with this change in the regulations. You've asked us not to be repetitive. The arguments in
support of these regulations have been made, I think, very effectively. Speaking as a
police officer, and on behalf of the men and women on our police department and the
citizens they serve, I strongly urge you to make these modifications in the regulations
and to give us the alcohol impact area legislation that will allow us to be selective
without being discriminatory. Thank you. Chris Clifford, Jersey's All-American Sports Bar: My
name is Chris Clifford. I own Jerseys All-American Sports Bar in Seattle, Washington. I'm
here to speak against this regulation and these rules, and one of the things I would do is
I would point you right to the section called "neighborhood livability," and
once again the Board is trying to adopt rules, for the second time this year that engage
in the "I think" standard. And reading to you that, "Renewal or unmodified
continuation of a liquor license has or will have a significant impact." Do you call
Dionne Warwick and ask her what will happen in a neighborhood in the future? Do you have a
crystal ball we don't know about? It's silly. It's not a standard. It's arbitrary, it's
capricious, and it allows you to let the city of Seattle engage in the kind of
discrimination that they've been engaging in the last eighteen... eight years that has
targeted fourteen businesses that cater to minorities. The other thing is, look at your list of problems.
Excessive noise. City Councilwoman Margaret Pageler said my business had excessive noise.
Slamming car doors late at night. Duh! What do you expect? I close at 2:00 in the morning.
What do you expect to hear at 2:00 in morning? It's moronic, but that's the kind of crap
that these guys would want to blame us for. You want to blame private enterprise for all
the social ills. You ask us to let these people have us enter into voluntary agreements
with new techniques. This voluntary agreement and new technique is the same kind of
blackmail that was used against Sonja's recently. We will get your license if you don't do
this. With me, voluntary agreement meant not catering to blacks. Don't cater to them or
we'll shut you down. And you're now codifying that. That's sad. You ask us, and we hear the authorities ask us, to engage
in good business practices. Well, gee. Let's look at the business practices. Take a look
at your own state liquor store on the corner of Sixth and Lenora. You have got drunks
sitting and leaning against the wall, peeing and crapping in the alley behind your own
enforcement office. I don't see you pulling those products off the shelf. I don't see you
doing what you're asking us to do. In fact, I see you being irresponsible. Clean your own
house, before you start having me clean the streets outside mine. The other thing is, you say, "We want you to engage in
good business practices." Well, let's look at the business practices of Washington
State Liquor Enforcement. You've had bribery accepted in downtown Seattle with outside
work to a liquor agent by a licensee. You have an agent in charge of Seattle who says that
the liquor agents engage in retaliation, he has no problem with that. You have liquor
agents who go around and use their badge as a free-admission key into the Kingdome while
they take their girlfriends and their children with them, and get them in for free. You
have liquor agents that have, let's see, have licensees paying for their lawsuits against
municipalities. You have liquor agents that, well, now that you've armed them, they stick
guns in their mouths in public and threaten to shoot themselves if you don't bring them
their girlfriends. Thank you. To wrap up, gentlemen, you've got the laws. If
these things are that bad, de-list them. Have the courage to do that. But don't pass an
unconstitutional law on us. Thank you. Jackson Beard, Chief of Detectives, King County
Sheriff's Office: My name is Jackson Beard. I'm Chief of Detectives for the King
County Sheriff's office, and I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief comments to
you this morning. I think in principle the King County Sheriff's office supports the
comments that have been made by the Seattle City Attorney, Mark Sidran, King County
Prosecutor Norm Maleng, Chief Norm Stamper and others, and so I won't reiterate or revisit
those issues. I would like to say, however, that the problem with the
chronic public inebriate is often associated by most people with the core area of downtown
Seattle, and we find that not to be true. We have discovered that in many urban areas of
King County, and in particular in our areas around here and Sea-Tac, White Center
Boulevard, and so on, that many of the same problems, many of the same issues arise for us
as well. One of the other issues I think it is important to mention is that the sheriff's
office, for the past few years, has become responsible for managing the security apparatus
which protects the citizens who use Metro Transit. Well, that security apparatus includes
deputies from the sheriff's office and police officers from the Seattle Police Department
as well. When people, chronic public inebriates, people by definition who have serious
problems, utilize the free transportation in downtown Seattle and elsewhere, they come in
direct proximity with our customers and obviously that proximity concerns us. So, once again, I'd like to reiterate that we do support
these issues, we congratulate you for the courage that you have to face these issues and,
once again, we register our support for those issues that you're dealing with in this
forum and the issues that have been described so eloquently by those before me. Thank you
very much. David Osgood, Attorney at Law: Thank you. David
Osgood, an Attorney at Law. When I reviewed this draft language I was struck by its
similarity to the city's draft cabaret licensing ordinance, which was discussed by the
city of Seattle and rejected by the City Council earlier this year, as being vague and
over-broad. I was very shocked to see that the neighborhood livability, which was the
poison pill which caused the rejection by the city of Seattle, has resurfaced. This is a
faulty provision from a discredited ordinance that the city of Seattle's mayor's advisory
task force itself has rejected. It is bad enough for Seattle, how can it be good for
localities from Aberdeen to Zillah? I am kind of shocked at the effrontery of finding it here,
and I am shocked to be hearing people say that you have the authority to do this. I have
read S&S Market, I have S&S Market in my hand, and I will quote you directly from
S&S Market. "No authority declares that S&S Market had the legal duty or even
a legal right to control third party conduct on city-owned property." That forecloses
you, and if that doesn't foreclose you, the Washington State Supreme Court came in in
Rivett v. City of Tacoma and says that the city can't give a person the duty to control
activity on a sidewalk. The supreme court came in later in Nivens v. Hoagy's Corner, and
says you are limited as to what you have to do on your own property. This rule goes
against controlling court of appeals and supreme court case law and is repugnant to the
constitution of the city of Seattle... or to the state of Washington, and was discredited
by the city of Seattle's own governing figures. I strongly urge you to reject this
over-reaching. Thank you. Dr. Alonzo Plough, Director, Seattle-King County
Department of Public Health: Good morning. Dr. Alonzo Plough, Correction Health
Officer, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. Thank you for the opportunity to
make a few comments. We applaud the Board's effort to join public health throughout the
state in the prevention of disease, and what I want to talk about this morning is the
critical role these regulations will play in the prevention of a very serious disease,
chronic public inebriancy. I won't bore you with a lot of statistics, but just a few
-- 95% of the people who drink do not have a problem with alcohol and would not be called
alcoholics, 95% of alcoholics do not have chronic public inebriancy. We're talking about
5% of alcoholics who have a severe, life-threatening disease that is correlated with the
availability of specific products -- fortified wines, low-cost, high alcohol content beer.
In study after study, these particular products are the causal agents in this disease that
causes death and disability to individuals and harm and violence to communities. It is
very standard public health practice when you have identified the cause of a disease and
you see the victims of this disease, to create some kind of restriction and protection of
that disease caused pathway. This is what these regulations allow us to do. It is not about drinking in general, nor is it about the
variety of problems relating to alcoholism, it's about the prevention of chronic public
inebriancy, and the data, again, which the King County Board of Health reviewed in great
detail after passing a motion last year recommending that the Liquor Control Board take
these actions, we looked at data from throughout the world. I have a three-inch binder
this thick of studies that show these correlations between these products and their
availability and chronic public inebriancy. A recent study from a medical journal from New
Orleans has even shown that the availability and high concentration of these products
increases sexually transmitted disease rates in defined geographical areas. So, the
epidemiological and public health data on the relationship between high concentration and
sales of these particular products, death and disability of individuals, and harm to the
community, it is incontrovertible, and I want to applaud the path that the Liquor Control
Board is taking and speak for health officers throughout the state in support of these
regulations. Thank you. Bryant Mason: My name is William Bryant Mason. I'm
opposed to the regulations, not because of the drinking, I'm adverse to drinking period.
I'm a Muslim. I'm opposed to the regulations because they are patently unconstitutional.
They are in direct violation of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America. It states specifically, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people." Period -- end of quote. I live at 2026 1/2 East Madison Street. Deano's block. My
associate, Mr. Embert Wilson, sold the 2026, 2026 1/2, and 2028 to me. He and Dean Falls
have an agreement with me to purchase the entire block. I want the block, I'm going to
purchase the block, but I'm not going to tolerate for the city attorney to come in with
his program and deny us the economic opportunity to have an increase in property values.
What occurred... the city attorney has driven his direct approbation as the chief of
police have. They sent in to Deano's from the outside, a snake, or whatever you want to
call it, by the name of Gene. Two police officers, I'm not going to mention their name
because we're going to sue them, what they did, they brought in persons to go into Deano's
to sell crack. Two of the officers, when they were departing, gave the informer dope.
Crack. Let me tell you about that area. I arrived from California
by the specific request of Mr. Wilson to change that area where it would become viable.
That particular area is equidistant between, if you go west you go into the Puget Sound,
and if you cannot swim you will die. If you go east, you go into Lake Washington. What has
occurred there, the Seattle Police Department has their own dope dealers, right now
sitting in the 2200 block and at 1425 22nd Street is a major crack house. See how many
times it has been raided. Right now, in that crack house, we have almost $600,000 worth of
stolen artifacts from Clay Paul's barber shop. What I'm saying is this, you... John Pritchard, Chief of Emergency Medical Services,
Seattle Fire Department: I'm not Chief Jim Fosse, but I'm here as his replacement. He
asked me to come and speak briefly to support the proposed rule changes. I think most of
the issues that we're concerned with have already been addressed so I will not be
redundant, but I'll tell you a little bit about what I do. I'm the Chief of Emergency
Medical Services for the Seattle Fire Department. That encompasses Medic One and we will
receive all of the basic life support functions within the city. We respond into the
neighborhoods that we're talking about, the business districts, the areas that the folks
drink very heavily and then require either emergency medical care or at least they require
that we come and take a look at them. There was some data put together about two years ago
that concluded just one neighborhood, which surrounds our headquarters office down on
Second Avenue South, and it's in the Pioneer Square area, what we discovered was that the
engine company primarily and the aid car that services that area, they respond into
Occidental Park just in incredible numbers, I would have to say. Between the two units, I
believe the aid car responds about 4,000 runs a year, which... not into that area
obviously, but of that 4,000 there is probably about, in a two year period, there are
about 725 responses into Occidental Park. Well, from my perspective, that's far too many.
And those numbers continue to increase. We're to a point now within the city of Seattle
where we're going to have to look at adding additional basic life support services just to
help provide for that element. We have three aid cars with their response numbers are
probably twice what they should be. When we're to accommodate that, we may have to place
additional units in service. So, basically what I came to tell you was that we strongly
support the rule changes and we feel that the rule changes will help decrease the demands
on our service. And when we can be more available for true emergencies within the city I
think we're really doing what our job responsibilities should be. Thank you very much. Michael Transue, Washington State Restaurant
Association: Members of the Liquor Control Board, my name is Michael Transue and I'm
here today representing the Washington State Restaurant Association. The Restaurant
Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Liquor Control Board's proposed
rules concerning chronic public inebriation and alcohol impact areas. Now, we agree with
the Liquor Control Board that chronic public inebriation is a unique social problem that
must be addressed, however, we do have several concerns with the proposed rules and
notwithstanding these we could support the proposed rules if the changes I'm going to
discuss are adopted. And having said that, the Restaurant Association will withhold
adopting a formal position on the rules until the next draft is available from the Board. The Washington Restaurant Association basically has three
major concerns with the proposed rules, and they are largely technical in nature, somewhat
substantive. First of all, it has always been the Restaurant Association's belief that the
proposed rules were always intended to address products that may be sold by liquor
licensees for off-premise consumption. Several sections of the proposed rules, including
Sections 12-215, sub 3, and 220, embrace this concept, however, there are several other
sections of the proposed rules which to do not embrace this concept and indicate that all
licensees within a proposed alcohol impact area could be subject to license restrictions,
whether or not the actions or behavior of a particular licensee relate to the chronic
public inebriation problem within the given AIA. Our second concern is related to what we believe is an
over-broad concept and definition of neighborhood livability, which is neither clearly nor
succinctly defined by the proposed rules. We are concerned that the proposed rules do not
specify whether it is the Liquor Control Board or the local government that has the
authority to determine what constitutes neighborhood livability. Our third concern is that we believe the proposed rules go
farther than addressing simply the problems associated with chronic public inebriation.
The proposed rules are explicit in this regard, and endeavor to mitigate impacts from the
result of chronic public inebriation or the illegal activity associated with alcohol sales
and consumption. In our view, all of the references to, quote, "or the illegal
activity associated with alcohol sales or consumption, " end quote, must be deleted
from the proposed rules. Put very simply, the Restaurant Association believes that
sufficient authority already exists with the public safety departments within local
governments to address any illegal activity associated with the sales and consumption of
alcohol. Finally, I'd just like to note that another one of our
concerns, although not directly related with these proposed rules is that, as you do know,
Portland, Oregon, has a similar set of rules on the books right now, and part of our
hesitancy with these rules is that a restaurant in Portland, Oregon, is now being subject
and penalized and sued for having a loud parking lot and the basis for the enforcement is
their alcohol impact area and chronic inebriation rules. So that causes us some concern.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, again. We will be submitting some more
detailed comments in writing and look forward to working with the Board and the Board
staff as this issue progresses. With the Board's permission, I'm going to cede part of my
three minutes to some partner business groups from the area. Kate Joncas, President, Downtown Seattle Association:
I'm Kate Joncas, I'm the president of the Downtown Seattle Association, and we are here to
strongly support the rule changes that are being proposed. Our organizations represent
businesses in the Seattle area and between all of us we have years of experience in trying
to mitigate the negative impact of chronic public inebriancy in our neighborhoods. We've
been strong advocates of new services and have supported locating them in our
neighborhood. Together our problem calls for dozens of alcohol treatment programs, and we
have been the group that has been out there trying to make the voluntary compliance work.
We represent business groups and think that these rules are what we need as a next tool to
help our neighborhoods become healthy again, but as representatives of business groups,
are going to be very concerned about implementation and are going to be watching that very
closely, because we are concerned about the health of all businesses that we represent. My
personal experience in Portland, by example I'll have to look into that, that this can
work and can be applied in an equitable way that is to everyone's benefit. And then I'll
now cede my time to other representatives. Mary Cuzanik, Vice President, Denny Regrade Business
Association: Good morning, thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is
Mary Cuzanik. I am the Vice President of the Denny Regrade Business Association and we
agree with the comments made by the proponents of these rule changes as mentioned early.
The Denny Regrade Business Association supports the proposed rule changes for alcohol
impact areas and neighborhood livability. We appreciate it, thank you. Scott Soles, President, University District Business
Improvement Area: Hi, my name is Scott Soles and I'm the President of the University
District Business Improvement Area in Seattle, an association of 200 business and property
owners. I don't like to get up for early meetings, so I get up and come downtown early in
the morning, but I made the effort to come down here because I think this is an important
issue and with the safeguards that Kate has mentioned, I think it would be a good tool to
address this issue in our community. Thank you. Kevin Burton, Director, Broadway Business Improvement
Association: I'm Kevin Burton, I'm the Director of the Broadway Business Improvement
Association, and as a business association we do support the rule making things that are
being proposed here today, and we do see that there's a danger of over-enforcement or
over-implementation, but we feel that the balance of the rule making people as well as the
community activists and associations like ours, we will mitigate any negative impact,
therefore we support this legislation. Darrel Morton, Rainier Chamber of Commerce: I'm
Darrel Morton. I'm representing the Rainier Chamber of Commerce in Rainier Valley. We're
also in support of this legislation and I'd also like to say that we compliment Mark
Sidran in taking on this issue. It's a real quality of life issue, and it's important that
we help people who have alcohol problems, but we have to have some expectations on our
rights as citizens and business owners not to be in an environment that's really negative.
I think you should have held this meeting down the street a little ways, outside, where
you might recognize some of the problems. Thank you. Phil Wayt, Executive Director, Washington Beer and
Wholesalers Association: My name is Phil Wayt, I'm Executive Director of the
Washington Beer and Wholesalers Association. We represent all the beer and wine
distributors in Washington. For a number of years I have been involved with the King
County CPI systems solutions committee on behalf of my industry and others involved in the
alcohol industry, both manufacturers and retailers, and we have tried to assist that
committee to give them knowledge about our industry and how it works, and cooperate with
that group and we cooperate with the establishment of the good neighbor agreement and
support it's implementation in the city of Seattle. And I think from the analysis that
we've done and what we've seen in Seattle, that program works. It's not perfect, but this
is a complex problem, but the good neighbor agreement program has worked and we support
it. As an upshot of that systems solutions committee, I'm sorry
we're here today with this, because number one, the city of Seattle I don't think the good
neighbor agreement has had the opportunity to show itself to some completion. There hasn't
been an evaluation done because the program is not over yet. And there's really no way to
measure the success of the program, although what we've experience and what we've
witnessed and what we've heard in the communities is that it is showing success. So, I'm
sorry we're here for this, and I think this is premature when we really haven't had a
final reading on the good neighbor agreement but yet we are dealing with a state-wide
regulatory proposal. You have to ask yourself, what's the goal here? Save lives,
protect property and people, and clean up a neighborhood...I mean, all that's good and an
admirable goal. There's only one problem. This proposal won't do it. Thankfully, we have
history to look at, and it's very, very simple -- prohibition didn't work, folks. And I
think that this is arbitrary, piecemeal prohibitionism. Alcohol impact areas, or zones as it was called in the
legislation that was introduced several years ago, only moves the problem, if that,
because with the housing and the treatment in Pioneer Square, for example, that's where
these unfortunate folks are going to congregate when you have the housing and treatment in
that area. If they go somewhere else to take care of their addiction and fulfill those
needs, then they're simply going to return to the area that you seek to clean up in the
first place. There was a news bite on Channel 7 I think, not to long ago, where they
interviewed one of these unfortunate folks and he was up in the Capitol Hill area getting
his product, and he said, well, this is great, you know, I'm still going to go back to
Pioneer Square, but I come up here and it's made easier in the city of Seattle, because we
have free bus transportation. So I just get on the free transportation, come up here and
get my product and I go back to where I'm taken care of. Where I have treatment and where
I have housing and where I get food and those kind of services. I would like to offer our cooperation in potentially
redrafting this proposal if that is the way you want to go. There is a number of very
significant problems here about how it would be implemented and I would just offer my
industry's cooperation in sitting down and working through this. Very significant
problems, if you go forward with this and we certainly hope you don't. Thank you. Steve Gabica , McCormick & Schmick's Restaurants:
I'm Steve Gabica with McCormick & Schmick's Restaurants. Our major concern along the
lines of the Restaurant Association in that the fact that the language is very clear and
we disagree with the City Attorney of Tacoma that this regulation is well crafted. It's
not. The language is not well-crafted. It's very vague. Our concern is that we have
several licensees within the state. We consider ourselves very responsible licensees. We
make our establishments enhance our neighborhoods, but we can be put into and disciplined
in a general area just because a licensee is irresponsible a couple blocks down the street
and needs to be targeted with disciplinary action. That's very frightening to us. So we
encourage that the regulations not be adopted the way they are. We agree with the
Restaurant Association that they should be crafted to determine better definitions of
chronic, adversely affected, and associated with alcohol sales and/or consumption. There
is no definition as to what these things are, what these terms are, or who will define
them, or how they will be defined. So we encourage that the rules not be adopted. Thank
you. Duston Jensen, Manager, Tax and License Division, City
of Tacoma: Mr. Brydon and Members of the Board, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to come before you. I want to start out by thanking you and the Board and the
Liquor Control Officers, primarily west, but I'm here from the city of Tacoma. I'm the
manager of the Tax and License Division for the City of Tacoma and through our
cooperation, cooperative effort between us and the Liquor Board, I think we've brought a
lot of the problems, working with and through things that you have set in place to help us
control some of the problems. The rules, as I read them and I'm here in support of them,
is more or less a tool for both the government and the individuals who are having problems
within their area. It has to do with what the licensee, the public, and the government. It
requires us to work together in a cooperative nature to see if we can solve the problem
first. It sets a time period in which we have to create or do away with the problem and if
we can't do away with the problem, there's three different public interventions that we go
through -- the city council, the Board, and then through the public itself. There's a lot
of time for input and a lot of time for individuals to essentially try and solve the
problem within themselves before the Liquor Board gets involved. I think it's a very
positive step. It just says that if we can't solve the problem as individuals, the public
and the government and the municipality, then in fact the Liquor Board will get involved
and help. Thank you. Scott Semans: My name is Scott Semans. I'm a
resident of Leschi, which is a Seattle neighborhood. I'm a business owner. I rarely drink,
I don't go to bars or taverns, and my interest in these issues comes about through
learning of the tremendous powers that this Board has to harm individual and often
innocent businesses, speaking specifically of the Oscar's situation. I wanted to make a
couple of general comments on public policy. I think it's bad public policy to shuffle addict
populations, whether drugs or liquor, from one neighborhood to another. It's also bad
public policy to turn over police functions to private business owners and then penalize
them for failing to perform to a standard that even the police can't accomplish. And I
think again that the Oscar's situation has brought this into very sharp focus. I don't
believe these proposals are really about helping alcoholics, nor about benefiting the
public, it's all about "don't scare the squares." I think the developers, the
downtown developers, and big retailers whose representatives we just heard from, are
afraid that if somebody comes over here from Bellevue to do a little shopping and they see
a guy lying on the King County courthouse drinking out of a brown paper sack, they're
going to throw up their arms and say, oh, back to Bellevue, we're not going to show up in
Seattle anymore. So, what it comes down to is yuppies vote, alcoholics don't. Yuppies
spend serious money, alcoholics don't. I think these should be called the Urban
Yuppification Proposals. And I don't think that's what Seattle is all about. Finally, I would urge this Board, given the amount of heat
that the Oscar's situation has generated, the community support and the question of
whether this Board has an independent role or is acting as a patsy for our City Attorney's
program to close certain businesses, I think that holding the upcoming Oscar's hearing
behind closed doors would be a very bad thing. Thank you. Omari Tahir, Chair, African American Heritage Museum:
My name is Omari Tahir, and I'm the Chair of the and the founder of the African American
Heritage Museum. I'm the Chair of the African Heritage Festival and Parade that is the
largest African cultural organization in the Northwest. I'm the founder of the
anti-apartheid movement in whole Pacific Northwest and my father was the first black
electrical engineer in the whole Northwest and he founded the only black bank, Liberty
Bank. I didn't come from a drunk background. My mother didn't drink, my father didn't
drink, I don't drink. I happened to end up owning a club, the Old Black and Tan, with
Quincy Jones on Twelfth and Jackson. As the Emerald Star with a contractor working on the
building I found out the guy I was working for didn't have a lease, I ended up with the
lease. I was in the club business. One night, after we was already white-balled, I had no
history whatsoever of being involved with any illegal activity, we were white-balled. We
couldn't get a liquor license. One night the Liquor Board came in, so what we did, we went
and went an hour before, I went way out in White Center, where nobody knew us, we got a
banquet license. That night the Liquor Board guy came in, the land use guy came in, the
tax man, the Seattle Police, the Fire Department. We didn't know there was pay-off in this
city if you are in the club business. That was when the Liquor Board was buying liquor
from apartheid South Africa and we raised that issue in the newspaper. Now, the reason why I am here today is because first of
all, there's been 49 murders of women, the Green River murders, in this county, and in
Pierce County, and now they're happening in Spokane County, and you hear this talked
about. The Green River murders, like, this is just going to be swept under the rug.
They're talking about unfortunate people laying in the street, drunk, I was at East
Precinct Crime Prevention, this is not something new. I have the minutes of the East
Precinct Crime Prevention meeting of May 23rd, 1997, where the City Attorney, who I
consider a Nazi fascist because the way they took over Germany was not from the
University. The police were the ones who had so much power, if you disagreed with any
policy, whether it's sleeping in the park, peeing in the park, or being drunk in public,
you were put in a concentration camp until you got in line, then you could join the police
force. We have a problem with our police because our police only have a high school degree
and they have a gun to kill people. But to be a teacher or a doctor, to save people's
lives, you have to have a degree. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books. We don't
need new laws. I have an article here about driving while blind, they've got this... going
to take your car if you don't, you know... All these laws on the books have always been
used again my people, since we were kidnapped from Africa, against Asian people, and
against poor white people who are not connected. Bill Gates has a speeding problem. The
policeman who gave him a ticket got fired. So, I've lived by Oscar's for almost 52 years.
I've lived in the central area. I've seen the time when the police would come up in your
place and do whatever they want and you had to pay them to stay in business. So, now for
the police to come in here, and this fascist Sidran, to come in here knowing the history
of his people and what the police did to his people. It was the police, the jackboots,
that came in and arrested Jews. I always wondered that, in Nazi Germany, how that
happened. For him to come in and have the police putting people out of parks, having the
police come in and sell illegal drugs in somebody's business, and guess what, just
recently I got an arrest warrant issued for my arrest, for being near the African-American
Heritage Museum. Time is up? I just want to say one thing. This Liquor Board
and you people be careful how much power is given to the police, because when the police
get so much power, all of our civil rights are in danger. Thank you. Martha Gordon CPI Steward for Pioneer Square: I'm
Martha Gordon. As a CPI Steward for Pioneer Square I am a firm believer in the good
neighbor agreement solution for areas such as Pioneer Square. But for a neighborhood like
ours, this is only a partial remedy -- a beginning. It enhanced awareness and began a
program of community responsibility. Our small, historic district has a long history of
alcohol related problems. I am sure there are many other areas of our state where this is
also true. Each community, historically over the years, designates and established a
watering hole district. For some of these districts, the good neighbor agreements and
volunteer diligence may be enough to rectify livability problems. But for other areas,
such as ours, there is a need for more strict regulatory rules that will augment the work
already established. In our very small part of the city, Pioneer Square has an
abundance of licensees, the majority of them being responsible and sensitive to
neighborhood livability issues. The establishment of an alcohol impact area and the
additional standards should not affect these retailers. Any added restrictions will only
affect those licensees who lack the social and moral responsibilities that the serving of
alcohol demands. I think the most important part of this proposed ruling is that through
community interaction with the Liquor Board, individual neighbors with issues can be
targeted. The framework of restrictions established from communication with the impact
areas can address particular problems and solutions. The good neighbor agreements only
concentrated on basically one issue, that being the sale of specific low-cost products
that are favored by chronic public inebriates. The alcohol impact area designation would
now allow communities to concentrate on other, sometimes more pervasive, problems
associated with the sale and consumption of alcohol. As a long-time member of Ron Sims'
Chronic Public Inebriate Systems Solution Committee, I applaud the Liquor Board's proposed
new ruling. When the alcohol impact and neighborhood livability proposal passes, you can
be assured... Barbara McCoy, Oscar's II: Good morning. I'm Barbara
McCoy. I'm with Oscar's II, and I want to ask you to give us a public hearing. The penalty
you put up on us, please make it known, and if you want to destroy us and our business,
we've been open over 23 years, please let it make public. Please give us that opportunity,
to give us a public hearing. Thank you. Stephen Pross, Pioneer Square Safety Team: Good
morning Members of the Board. My name is Stephen Kraus. I live in a low income housing
project in Pioneer Square, and I would like to say that I am in favor of the new rule
making. We have a very large problem of public inebriation where I live in, which also
goes hand in hand, unfortunately, with drug use. I'm also a member of the Pioneer Square
Safety Team and we also see a lot of public inebriation in the Pioneer Square area. I
think that these new rules would help the police be able to curb the problems that we have
down there. Also, I'd like to reiterate the person who was from the
fire department, we've had quite a number of, a high number of incidents where the
ambulances have been called to our residence, to our place, because of public inebriation
and this would help. Thank you. Oscar McCoy, Oscar's II: My name is Oscar McCoy, and
I'm against this ruling because I think it's another tool, like the abatement law was.
What the abatement law did, the City Attorney had the Liquor Board to take our license,
which we've been in business for 22 years, with no liquor violations. And so the City
Attorney went on record saying he had nothing to do with it when we had two letters in the
file from the City Attorney to the Liquor Board asking them not to renew our license, and
they had me come up for an abatement and four days after I went to abatement meeting, they
put out a memorandum from the 12th East Precinct saying any phone calls from Oscar, they
want a major write up and want it to go to the drug elimination people. So I think this law they trying put in is just another way
of going after businesses that they want to try to shut down. And this is what they did to
us. I would beg the Liquor Board to give us a public hearing where we can show what the
police department, the undercover detectives, when down on James Street and got drug
addicts to come down to our business, when we wasn't in the business, and pay them to
supposedly make drug buys. The detectives went into the ladies room, to supposedly make
drug buys. It say we know in the letter it happened, if you look at the record of all
these drug buys, it was the time my wife and I was not in the business, and we had
security on the door, they didn't go to the security and say we made a drug buy, they did
not make an arrest. They paid the woman who come in to make a drug buy, and didn't tell us
so we could bar them out or nothing, and they used that because they got Rite-Aid coming
on one side of us and they bought the land on each side of us that is sold. So I think it's unfair to put more regulations on people so
they can use them against us like they did with this abatement law. We went before the
judge, the judge dismissed all the charges against us. We went through two trials, and
each judge said we had no knowledge. Knew nothing about, because the detectives testified
they didn't tell us, because they target our business because people of interest to the
police came into our business. If the police were to come in and say this person shouldn't
be in here, we had two lists of people we barred out of our club. Each time they would
come in and say, somebody shouldn't be in here, they was gone. They didn't tell us doing
the drug buys, they paid people, drug addicts, to do that, so I beg the Liquor Board to
give us a fair hearing and a public hearing. Thank you. Greg Hopkins, Tacoma Police Department: Good
morning, my name is Greg Hopkins, I represent the Tacoma Police Department in the city of
Tacoma. I'm assigned as a coordinator for the community liaison unit for the police
department. Behind me are some of our neighborhood folk from the city of Tacoma. First,
I'd like to thank the lady from Vashon Island for her comments. It's not totally true,
though. They do have chronic inebriate problems in the city of Tacoma, so those are issues
that we are struggling with in our city and we will continue to struggle with. We have
taken this proposal to our neighborhood groups in the city of Tacoma, and almost across
the board, they have agreed with the WAC changes. It's something that our neighborhoods
want to see in place to assist us with dealing with these issues which are a city-wide
problem in the city of Tacoma. It will also make the job easier for the police department
and our other city departments in dealing with chronic inebriate problems and problem
business locations. And so we encourage the Board strongly to adopt these WAC
changes to assist the local municipalities in dealing with these issues at the local
level. Also, we'd like to thank the Board for taking these issues on, and the agents that
are assigned to the city of Tacoma do an absolutely fantastic job of working with us
currently, and we think that if this initiative passes we will continue to see a further
working relationship that will be successful for making our community more livable. At
this time I'd like to have Judy Quackenbush and Russ Winter speak to you. They represent a
neighborhood group in the city of Tacoma. Russ Winter: I'm Russ Winter. I'm the redeveloper of
two historic vintage buildings in an emerging, and I would add, an improving neighborhood
in Tacoma near Wright Park and pretty near Hilltop. We've put considerable capital and
effort in these properties. Although these buildings at one time could only be described
as rough, today the residents consist of primarily working people, generation Xers. I
would characterize them as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces of the
people in this room, and I strongly believe these folks deserve an opportunity to live in
decent housing, sound neighborhoods, at affordable prices. I recently had one of the
female residents that moved into my building and told me about something that she
observed, specifically three drunken men on the vacant property next door, consuming large
quantities of alcohol. I had another young female resident in my building approach me and
mention the fact that when she was jogging the evening before, she was propositioned for
sex. Judy Quackenbush: My name is Judy Quackenbush, and
along with a lot of other folks in Tacoma, we have been working real hard these past years
to accomplish regeneration in some of our more challenged neighborhoods. That's been made
possible by the cooperation between city departments, neighborhood groups, folks like Red
Hopkins. We've made tremendous progress in creating healthy communities for lots of good
people, for a large segment of the population of Cambodian-Americans that are experiencing
America here in these neighborhoods. A remaining stumbling block, a serious remaining
stumbling block is the result of the chronic inebriation and the appended activity that
impacts our neighborhoods. The drug use, the street crime, and this proposal, these rules,
these alcohol impact zones, are a ray of hope to those of us who want to finish the job.
Thank you. Dan Levine, President, K&L Distributors: My name
is Dan Levine. I am the President of K&L Distributors. We are a large beer and wine
distributor throughout King and Pierce County. I don't sell malt liquor or I buy and sell
a couple hundred cases, which is about less than ½ percent of the malt liquor sold in
Seattle. I have no financial desire to make money off of selling malt liquor or selling
fortified wine. In the alcohol beverage industry, in the restaurant industry, in the mom
and pop store business, all of us understand that we have a responsibility because we're
under the microscope, to do well by the laws in our society, by the laws in our community.
There are people that abuse them. We can't stop that all the time, but the Liquor Control
Board and the police department, we feel, have adequate remedies under existing laws to
control the problems in our communities. I grew up in Seward Park. Columbia City is where I got my
first library card. I went to buy candy at Sidran's family drug store. Those neighborhoods
are tough today. It isn't because we allow 7% alcohol to be sold there in beer or we allow
fortified wines. If we change the law and said 6% alcohol, 6% beer would be okay, and 12%
wine would be okay, the problem is not going to go away, because of 1% of alcohol in 12
ounces of beer or 24 ounces of wine. I guess I'm a Bellevue yuppie, because I walk down Fourth
Avenue or up Fourth Avenue from the Kingdome to the courthouse, and is scared the hell out
of me. And knowing what we're talking about today and what we've been talking about for a
variety of time, I walked. I looked at the people. I tried to see who had a green bottle
in a paper bag, and I didn't see any. But I saw a lot of homelessness. And it's a sad
problem. So maybe what we should do is outlaw homelessness in Seattle. That solves the
problem. Drugs are a problem in society and we're busting. The police department's doing a
great job. They are busting about one methamphetamine lab a week. Methamphetamine, from
what I know, is incredibly addictive and there was an article on this morning's news that
22% of all criminals in jail were high on drugs when they committed a crime, but we have a
solution. We made methamphetamine illegal and the police pay attention to what the laws
are in our community and we enforce them. My personal belief is that we have areas in town that we
have problems with certified public inebriates, that we focus in on those areas, that we
provide adequate police protection, that we work as a community to enforce the laws and to
help the people who have problems. But "feel good" solutions cost the taxpayers
money in paperwork, in political press, and it doesn't do anything to solve the problem.
Thank you for listening. Mark Greenberg, Anheuser Busch: Thank you Members of
the Board. My name is Mark Greenberg, here on behalf of Anheuser Busch companies. We'd
like to congratulate the Board for addressing the issues of the CPI situation in Seattle
and other communities. Unfortunately, though, we have to oppose the rules as they are
currently written. Our principle concern is this whole concept of zones. We don't think
that's fair and we're not certain of the legality of it. I can assure the Board that no one at Anheuser Busch wants
to see their products abused by anyone and most people, in our experience, consume
alcoholic beverages responsibly and do not have the kind of problems that are trying to be
addressed by this rule or regulation. The problem then comes and we thinks it's...If you
want to restrict a product or you want to restrict a sale or you want to restrict
behavior, you need to do that on a targeted, individual basis, store by store, customer by
customer. Not zone by zone or neighborhood by neighborhood. It seems unfair to us that a
legal customer at a legal retailer store purchasing a legal product under legal hours and
legal conditions, should be penalized because their neighbor down the street is disobeying
the law. We would offer ourselves, we have experience in other
states in this issue, we'd like to offer to work with the Board to try and improve these
regulations. We can think of a number of concepts that we think would better address the
problem, more targeted solutions. If you've got a problem with a specific retailer that's
selling illegally, let's target that specific retailer. Let's give them training if they
need it, let's give them restrictions if they need it. Another possibility we'd like to
suggest to the Board is a new type of license, perhaps. Similar to the one that exists for
fortified wines. Or if you have specific individual cases and you needed specific
authority for beer products or other types of products, you can do it through a specific
license. Thank you. Jan Drago, City of Seattle City Council Member: I am
Jan Drago, a City of Seattle City Council Member as well as a resident of Pioneer Square
neighborhood and a former small business owner, and I am here today to support the
proposed changes in the WACs. I would like to especially thank the State Liquor Control
Board for their active involvement and interest in the chronic inebriate project over the
past two years. I've been involved with, I've lived and worked downtown since 1982 so I've
had first-hand experience with chronic public inebriates for a very long time in all the
downtown neighborhoods, Pioneer Square, Pike Market and the Denny Regrade, and as a
citizen activist worked very, very hard on this issue as far back as 1985-1986. And we've
had some small successes but a lot of frustration, and it's really been, in the past two
years, with the combined efforts of King County, the city of Seattle, the Liquor Control
Board that we've begun to see some changes and some improvements. I walk to work every day and Pioneer Square has never
looked or felt better, in my opinion, than it does today, and that's due to a number of
factors, but one certainly is the good neighbor policy that's been instituted as well as a
lot of efforts from the committee groups and from the city and from the county. So, the
voluntary efforts do work. Sometimes they get off to a good start and they work for
awhile, but it's not enough. And that's why we need the regulations that will be there
over time if the voluntary efforts falter as time goes on. So, I'm very appreciative of
the work that the Liquor Control Board has done, and through the strong interest that
you've taken in this project and your willingness to draft these proposals and changes to
the next step. I'm very supportive of it. Stu Halson, representing Rite Aid and Coors Brewing
Company: Stu Halson, today representing Rite Aid and Coors Brewing Company, and
speaking against the proposed regulation. I'd just like to summarize. We believe that this
is not necessary, that in fact the existing laws can and should be enforced both in
regards to licensees and relative to selling product to obviously intoxicated persons, as
well as the persons who are purchasing and consuming the products. We believe this
regulation is not narrowly focused. It should aim at licensees that have been causing the
problems, not throw an area-wide net over the back of all licensees in a particular area.
It should focus on cooperative efforts. It's been mentioned the good neighbor program has been
successful. Mr. Beyers mentioned they've gone from two complaints per day, I guess, to two
per week, and Mr. Wayt has mentioned that in fact it hasn't even had time to operate. I
think you need to focus in that direction as well. If regulation is needed, it should be
developed in a cooperative type of manner. Clearly, you can see from the testimony today
that there is a great divergence of opinion in regards to this regulation. Don't try to
develop something from one side of the issue and try and jam it down the throats of the
people most affected. We would be more than happy to work with the Board in
trying to develop something that is licensee specific, that is based upon rational and
clear standards, that perhaps has certain and temporary types of restrictions while the
Board would work with the licensee, in order to have progressive changes in the way that
these matters are done. But just because some feel that something has to be done, does not
mean that this is the exact thing that needs to be done. I think that a lot of other folks
who have been testifying in favor of this, would perhaps be willing as well to sit down
with the licensees and other members of the public who oppose this proposal and work with
them if given the opportunity. Thank you. Ellie Schroeder, Samis Land Company/Pioneer Square
Community Council and Public Safety Committee: Good morning, my name is Ellie
Schroeder. I'm a project manager with the Samis Land Company, and we own 13 buildings in
Pioneer Square. I'm also the Chair of the Pioneer Square Community Council and Public
Safety Committee. This is where I send forth public safety teams who walk around Pioneer
Square trying to discourage illegal and unsafe mediators. But this morning I'm here to
discuss the rule making, which the Pioneer Square Community Council and Public Safety
Committee does support. First of all, I'd like to say thank you for allowing us to
speak to this. Secondly, I'm very sorry that you've been forced to listen to some very
crude ones and unprofessional language by many of those opposed to these rules. Pioneer Square. I'm going to say that again to you. Pioneer
Square. And I want to know what you think of when you hear "Pioneer Square." I
want to know when the last time was you took your children to Pioneer Square, or your
mother, or your girlfriend to Pioneer Square, and I then I want to know why you didn't.
Because some of the images in your mind of Pioneer Square is that of the chronic public
inebriate. I know we have many, many licensees in Pioneer Square and most of them are
outstanding, and we do like those people who do enjoy going to their businesses, but we
also have some extremely irresponsible licensees. Some of those licensees sell drug
paraphernalia and they smoke at their doorstep as their customers consume alcohol on the
sidewalk in front of their business. This week I learned of a price war for beer as low as
45 cents for a very large can of high volume alcohol content. These rules in no way affect
licensees' ability to conduct legal and responsible business. It is both appropriate and
necessary that these rules be enacted in conjunction with all of the supporting actions,
such as the good neighbor agreement being taken by our community. These rules provide the
neighborhood with the means to change the perception and the reality of our neighborhood.
We strongly support the passage of these rules and urge you to adopt them. Thank you. Darrell Myers: Darrell Myers, representing myself
and other concerned citizens who had to take time off from work to come down here. I like
the one thing here about the... what is it here? It goes on about obtrusive and excessive
noise, chronic public inebriation, fights, litter. That sounds like frat row to me, and
you might have to shut down all of frat row too, with this new law. And also here, the
last time I looked, the Liquor Control Board had a big book about laws. There's currently
laws that if you're drunk you can't buy liquor, you can't drive drunk. There's so many
laws already on the books that we don't need any more laws, because when was the last time
a law was repealed? I think prohibition is the only one I can think of, but this is
just.... The last thing the Liquor Control Board needs to do is pass more laws regulating
small businesses. One thing I've noticed, everybody who's against this have
been minorities, and everybody for it has been white business owners. I thought the police
department would have been smarter and brought up a couple of black or Asian cops and have
them testify, you know, for this bill, but obviously this is a very racial divided issue.
And I'd just like to quote Mark Sidran here, because he goes, "These new rules send a
clear message that liquor licensee... comes responsibility, blah, blah, blah... to
sell...." And then he also goes on, which he left off, "...a responsibility to
prevent violence and drug trafficking from turning a nightclub's neighborhood into a
shooting gallery." Obviously he's going to take this law and apply it to nightclubs.
It's not going to be at the little mommy corner grocery store. The only people this is
going to affect are going to be Asian-American grocery stores and black music clubs, and
that's who this whole law is all about. And it's not about...you know, there's plenty of
laws we've seen them enforce the ones and you know when I read this to submit this to the
Liquor Control Board, so quote from Mark Sidran because it is very important piece of
material that he's going to use against many club owners and Asian stores later on. So I
am strongly against this. David Brunner: David Brunner. I'm a resident in
Pioneer Square and you don't have to spend much time in Pioneer Square to see the effects
of alcohol in our neighborhood. This evidence alone is disturbing and how it effects the
livability of my community is profound. I support the rule making efforts of the
Washington State Liquor Control Board, the alcohol impact areas should be a tool in the
toolbox that leads to a group community livability and raises the awareness for the
responsible use of alcohol. This is an ongoing process of education that should be
supported by everybody. I read the Real Change newspaper on my way up here this
morning and it talks about that there's an estimated 1,500 chronic public inebriates on
the streets of Seattle. Street drunks are the most visible but they're not the only ones
-- 76 million people have been exposed to alcoholism in their family or the family they've
married into. Approximately 13 million people meet the criteria for alcohol dependence or
abuse. Every year about 2 billion is spent advertising alcoholic products and alcohol
consumption costs society 148 billion dollars in the same year for loss wages and
productivity. Alcohol contributes to a 100,000 deaths annually and then it goes on, it
says, these figures make it plain to see that the homeless drunk lying in the alley off
Pioneer Square is not one of the people involved in the 41% of traffic fatalities that are
alcohol related. That's kind of what I'm after is the perception of our neighborhood. The
process of establishing the AIAs has given me the opportunity to be exposed to the
diversity of perspectives. I believe that the review, the local review component should
include opportunities for a continued dialog that leads to greater consensus between for
the competing interest. It is the goal of many at Pioneer Square to strike a balance
between the rights and responsibilities of the alcohol establishment and other businesses
and interests in our community. I hope that the AIA brings people together that can and
want to make a difference and if this hearing has been another usable step, thank you for
the opportunity. Amy Brackenbury, Executive Director, Washington
Association of Neighborhood Stores: Hi, I'm Amy Brackenbury here on behalf of the
Washington Association of Neighborhood Stores. The members of our association share the
concern of these rules attempt to address but we do not support the proposal being
considered today. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we believe that the
current state law which prohibits a retailer from selling alcohol to an already inebriated
person should be actively enforced by the Liquor Control Board and by local law
enforcement officials. We are concerned about the authorization of alcohol impact
areas. First of all, if an area is designated as an alcohol impact zone and all sales of
certain alcohol products are banned in this zone, what would prevent the CPIs from
migrating to a nearby area and purchase their product of choice. Would the zone be
expanded? If so, where would it end and how would the results of the product elimination
be effectively and credibly measured on this scale. Is eliminating the availability of
certain products going to stop the people who are addicted to alcohol from drinking? I'm
aware that you have developed a list of products favored by CPIs using the formula and
information given to you by some of the wholesalers. If you eliminate these products from
certain areas, however, won't the chronic public inebriate most like move to a new area or
move to new products? It's not reasonable to assume that they're going to stop drinking.
If you ban certain products in a geographic area, will the list of the banned products be
continually expanded until all alcohol is again in the area. We have repeatedly asked the question, how would the
effectiveness of alcohol impact zones be measured? To date I don't believe that that
question has been adequately answered. Has the voluntary "Good Neighbor"
agreement in Seattle proven ineffective? Why move ahead until we know if this approach is
having an impact? I think there are some aspects of the draft proposed rules which our
members would support. For example, we're not opposed to creating a special restrictive
class of license for retailers who do not sell alcohol responsibly, nor would we opposed
suspending comment period for license renewals for certain retailers. But lumping everyone
into the same category because of their geographic location could penalize someone simply
because the actions of their neighbors. This is unfair. License renewals and new licenses
should be granted based on an individual's past performance or other standards, not the
actions of the neighboring businesses. We also have serious concerns about restricting a
licensee's ability to conduct business based upon the actions of some of their customers
once they leave the store. As I've stated previously, we'd like to see the strict
enforcement of current laws prohibiting alcohol sales to any breed of person. Although we
have many concerns with what has been outlined in the proposed rules, we'd like to
continue to work with you and everyone involved in this issue to come up with a solution
that's acceptable to everyone. Thanks. Bill Hobson, Deputy Director, Downtown Emergency Service
Center: My name is Bill Hobson and I'm Deputy Director of a human service agency
called Downtown Emergency Service Center. It's an organization that serves homeless
people; we work with approximately 10,000 indigent or homeless people each year. I've
worked there for 15 years and I've seen substantial amount of chronic public inebriacy.
And there's something missing from this hearing. No chronic public inebriates. And I think
if there were chronic public inebriates here at this hearing you would hear a very loud,
resounding affirmation. Some gentlemen had the suggestion that the real way to deal with
this is to outlaw homelessness. I would agree with you and so would they. Homelessness in this community, I'm sort of surprised to
hear the opponents of this measure neglect to mention, it's basically a consequence of not
only economic discrimination and marginalization, but vestiges of institutional racism. In
my agency 62% of the ten thousand people we work with come from communities of color. Of
roughly 30% that are chronically addicted to substances about 70% come from communities of
color. There's another element of racism here, folks, that you're missing the boat on and
that's the victims of cheap booze and the availability of that cheap booze and the
destruction that it's doing to the lives of a substantial percentage of folks from
communities of color. It's sort of ironic in a way, I support this measure, I do
so somewhat reluctantly because I reluctantly in the sense that I don't want it to be
considered to be the only effort toward resolving the issue of living addictive illnesses
in public arenas. But I'm heartened when I hear the Mayor and the County Executive promise
and actually in this past year, bring on line treatment services and housing services that
are the real solutions. I see limiting product availability as one tool to approach the
whole problem of chronic public inebriancy, and therefore I and the organization I work
for support it. Thank you. Donna Neighbors, Washington Food Industry: Good
morning gentlemen and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I'm
Donna Neighbors and I represent Washington Food Industry. Most of my comments have already
been stated, however, I would like to ask some questions at this point. While our industry
opposes this proposed rule, we also don't sell, for the most part, very, in very many of
our stores, fortified wine. However, if this rule were to pass our concern is if the
current law, prohibiting alcohol sales to inebriated persons being enforced, I know that's
been mentioned. Is the proposed rule meant to resolve the problem or move it? Is it not
highly probable that CPIs will take advantage of Seattle's free transportation system to
purchase alcohol at another location and return to their home area for consumption? Why is the Liquor Control Board looking beyond fortified
wines. How can the Liquor Control Board not be specific in identifying what products are
proposed to be restricted? How should our members handle customer requests for specific
products and the fact that over 50% of our membership are multiple store owners, how will
corporate advertising be handled in the zoning areas? While we oppose the rule we do
encourage the government to put forth efforts, energy, and resources towards getting to
the root of this very human problem rather than move it to other neighborhoods. Thank you. Cary Atlas, Third Avenue Task Force/Pioneer Square
Community Council/Color One Photographic and Digital Imaging: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. My name is Cary Atlas, I'm here in a least three capacities.
First, I'm President of Pioneer Square Community Council, and as such I'm here
representing the community that is arguably most significantly impacted by alcohol
consumption. I also co-chair a body known as the Third Avenue Task Force Enforcement
Square Steering Committee, the mission of that body is to revitalize the Yesler Way
corridor in the vicinity of Second and Third Avenues. It's long been identified as an area
may be the geographic link to ground zero for the impacts of alcohol consumption. And
thirdly, I'm president of Color One Photographic and Digital Imaging. I've tried to run a company in Pioneer Square. Clearly
we're impacted by some of the street level activity that happens in the community. I'm
going to be really brief because I don't know that I have, substantially, a lot more to
contribute than as the regents said on behalf of the legislation so I should probably say
that I and the Pioneer Square community strongly support the legislation. The two things
that they're most excited about when I read through the draft proposal, are this: There
have been voluntary good neighbor agreements in place, and there are a lot of responsible
operators of liquor establishments that have already been pointed out. There are some that
are not so responsible and when you come to them with voluntary agreements that are not
enforceable, they still engage in activities that have adverse impacts in the community.
So that's a piece of the legislation that I applaud. The other piece that I applaud is that there is a real
focus on neighborhood livability and impacts on the community. Alcoholism and alcohol
problems, I think, long have been identified as not just a problem for the drinker, but I
think we think about it in the context of families. It becomes a family problem. Well I'd
like to say that in my opinion, it's a community problem. I mean our community family is
impacted by alcohol and something does needs to be done about it. Just one last quick note, I think of more capacity that I'm
here as, as a father and as a husband, and my wife and my young daughter like to come
visit me to go lunch or go to dinner during the day or in the evening. There are times
where I think twice before I ask them to come down and meet me for dinner or meet me for
lunch in our community because our business is situated near the corner of Second and
Yesler and there are a number of establishments in that area that sell alcohol, that
impacts the community and the impacts you can see are direct. This is not some theoretical
linkage between these businesses saying what's happening in the community because you can
often go around and see a dozen people congregated right in front of these establishments,
drinking or having, just had something to drink. They're fighting, they're creating a
general state of disarray and to be frank it's uncomfortable for my wife and my daughter
to come walking in the neighborhood at times and I don't think that's right. And I also want to say something about the police
department. When the police department comes down and moves them along and does what they
can within their legal constraints, we see improvements but the frank truth is is that the
police department can't stand on the corner of Second and Yesler or on the corner of Third
and Yesler 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and I think these tools will, that are in this
legislation, will help a great deal. Thank you. Rick Wyatt, Fenix Underground: I am Rick Wyatt from
the Fenix Underground in Pioneer Square. And I'm one of the many responsible operators of
night life businesses in the city of Seattle. We are a vibrant night life here in Seattle,
which is something Seattle needs and enjoys to attract it's convention business and to be
a city equal to others in the nation, the night life is important. I think we have
addressed the situations that this rules change, most recently with the added activities
ordinance which is now in the city council and this is the issue that I think that I
respond to in that, the only thing standing between a no man's land in Pioneer Square and
the vibrant residential life that is beginning to spawn there has been the responsible
night club businesses that operate in the night. Without that, you would not be able to
get to and from your apartments. It's the vibrant night life in Seattle responsible
behavior that we've been able to produce down there year in and year out, has brought
vitality, has brought resources, and security, I believe, to the residential community. So
I think that that we show and I certainly believe that the goals of these types of rules
are something I would agree with, however, as a responsible night club owner, as I've been
identified, I do not feel comfortable with these rules. They are scary to me, it's too
ambiguous as to what the conditions and restrictions are, and I would not support them in
their present form. Thank you. Ken Houghton, Chair, Libertarian Party of West King
County: My name's Ken Houghton, I'm the Chair and Libertarian of West King County. I
don't have any prepared remarks today I just want to put out some general observations. At
the risk of delving in hyperbole I know the holocaust was mentioned earlier. And you look
at some of the other tragedies of human history, you look at the crusades or persecutions
of gypsies, things of this nature, these were all things that government did to impose
moral standards for the good of society. And when you use government to do that it's
important to realize that the ultimate authority of government comes from the barrel of a
gun. If you don't do what the government wants you to do, men with guns come take you
away. So you've got to be very careful what power you allow the government to impose on
your society. I find it really ironic that the state of Washington, which
zealously guards a monopoly on the retail sale of liquor, is telling us that they're
concerned of the effect of alcohol in society. If they're concerned of the effect of
alcohol in society, stop selling it. Coming in to work, or coming here today, I was late,
overslept the alarm clock, went bombing down Bellridge Avenue. I got pulled over by the
City of Seattle Police Department. I was wrong, I broke the law, I was speeding and was a
safety hazard. They let me go. I'm anonymous to the police department. Oscar McCoy, he
helped the cops. He did, the cops came in said we need you to do this Oscar, we need you
to do that Oscar. Oscar's getting punished for that and when you're punishing it you're
punishing him in a closed meeting so you can do it in secret so the rest of us don't have
to see you do it. I think it's cowardly. I'm going to waive the rest of my time to Chris
Caputo. Chris Caputo, State Treasurer, Washington State
Libertarian Party: Hi, I'm Chris Caputo, I'm a member of the Washington State
Libertarian Party, I'm the State Treasurer. I'm a resident of Broadview which is a
northern Seattle neighborhood. I'd like to suggest that an increase in regulation by the
Washington State Liquor Control Board is likely to result in an increase of public
disenchanting, with the Liquor Control Board. And I wonder how long it's going to take
till there's a state initiative to eliminate the Liquor Control Board. I'd also like to
ask what's to stop all of Seattle from being declared an alcohol impact area? And I'd also
like to repeat a request for a public hearing for the Oscar situation. Thank you. Board Member Brydon thanked everyone for
participating in the public hearing, and invited interested persons to submit further
comment to the Board in writing. The meeting was recessed at 10:10 a.m., to
reconvene at 2:30 p.m. in Spokane, for a continuation of the public hearing on proposed
rule making. The meeting was reconvened at 2:30 p.m. at Spokane
Community College, Sasquatch Room, North 1810 Greene Street, Spokane, by Board Member
Charles F. Brydon. Also in attendance was Kim O'Neal, Assistant Attorney General. Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Rule Making: Board
Member Brydon welcomed those present to a public hearing on proposed rules regarding
alcohol impact areas and neighborhood livability. He indicated the Board will also hold a
public hearing the following morning at 8:30 am. in Yakima Board Member Brydon stated at the specific request of
Governor Gary Locke, the Liquor Control Board has been part of a public-private
partnership known as the Chronic Public Inebriate Systems Solutions Committee. He stated
this committee has been chaired by Patrick Vanzo of the Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health, and it has brought together a unique array of public and private interests
to craft a multidimensional approach to the challenges of chronic public inebriation.
Board Member Brydon indicated the proposed rules being presented today are but one piece
of a mosaic of actions that are being undertaken to address this social challenge. Board Member Brydon stated the proposed rules also address
the question of neighborhood livability, or the impact a single licensee may have on the
livability and civility of its community. He indicated this rule is intended to address
some unfinished business that arose from an early 1960s Pierce County Superior Court
decision. Board Member Brydon explained the court asked that the Board define the basis
for addressing neighborhood impacts arising from the sale of alcohol, and this is what the
rule endeavors to accomplish. Board Member Brydon stated the hearing will open a summary
of the rules by the Director of the Board's Licensing and Regulation Division, David
Goyette. David Goyette, Director, Licensing and Regulation Division: David Goyette, Director of Licensing and Regulation, stated the proposed rules are divided into two sections -- the creation of alcohol impact areas and new criteria associated with neighborhood livability. He stated in both of these parts there are some important provisions to note.
Mr. Goyette stated in closing, it should be noted that
these rules do not spring to life spontaneously, but they are brought to you by
communities and neighborhoods where alcohol causes real problems. He indicated the
proposed rules have been drafted in response to business groups, civic associations,
health practitioners, elected officials and neighborhood leaders who have asked the Liquor
Control Board to enter into a partnership with them to attack this problem. Board Member Brydon called for public testimony. The
speakers were given a three minute time limit. Following is a verbatim transcription of
that testimony: David Williams, restaurant owner: I'm David
Williams. I'm a licensee of a restaurant in Pasco, Washington. As these rules are written
or proposed right here, I have to be very, very much against them. I think any good
licensee understands the responsibility of being responsible for his actions or her
actions, but to arbitrarily make the licensee subservient to the municipality, it can be
misused and as I read these rules, there is really no appeal process for the licensee
involved with the situation that's coming forward. Because of that, this is where I am in
disagreement with the rules as written. Thank you. Virginia Newell: My name is Virginia Newell, and I'm
not an official representative of Hilliard, but I'm a historian of Hilliard, and I know
that more than anything in this world, Hilliard's history has been affected by alcohol and
its misuse. Twenty years ago, our steering committee in Hilliard set aside, one of our big
goals was to restrict the sale of alcohol and this giving of licenses in Hilliard. When
the great Northern came through a hundred years ago, it brought with it more problems that
we ever knew. And not only the Jim Hill Mustard Weed, but it also brought a plague of,
like a gold mine or something, in which alcohol was the thing that took a lot of people's
minds off their hard work and long hours, and all they had left was to turn to alcohol. I believe that an act which is as dehumanizing as
overserving, it has got to be limited securely and forever in Hilliard. Since the steering
committee asked for no more new tavern licenses 20 years ago, at this time I believe there
are five new ones, and I hesitate to say this, but the State Liquor Board has made liquor
even more available in our neighborhood than we would like it to be. The time has come for
everyone to rally around the fact that if we dehumanize a brother who over drinks, then we
must transform the structures that are dehumanizing him. My brother died an alcoholic
after three various times in detox, and it's very dear to my heart that this won't happen
to anybody else in the whole world, and it doesn't matter why you drink or what you drink,
except I think I'd prefer hot water and coffee. This is a time for the State Liquor Board, you're really
doing wonderful things. You're recognizing that there are neighborhoods. I grew up as a
child living downtown in an apartment hotel, which was pretty odd then, it was 70 years
ago. And we could walk safely anywhere downtown. Right now I'm in a neighborhood that now
if I didn't live here I wouldn't recognize it. A woman jumped on her the running board of
my pick up to reach her hand out, and I couldn't believe it. This is a woman. And I said,
do you need something, and she said, I need a drink. I don't like to turn people down but
I didn't think she really needed one because I see her so often in the detox thing,
waiting on the curb. Bert Porter: My name is Bert Porter, I am a
pharmacist. I've had a pharmacy in Spokane for a number of decades. My purpose in coming
today is more toward alcoholism than it is towards your regulations. My pharmacy was
located near a half-way house, and I had a lot of the guys do part-time work for me, a
little work. I had one particular person who was extremely intelligent, a hard worker,
probably the nicest person you ever want to know in your life, but he was an addicted
alcoholic, and his favorite was the fortified wines. And when he went on his drinking
binge he was a total disaster. I tried for a year to find a place to put this person
through all the state agencies without any success. That was in about 1991, January 1 of
1994 he passed away. He had drank himself to death. I've also talked to a lot of other
people that have relatives that have the same frustration with the state, because they
have no place to put their alcoholic relatives. No treatment facilities, no longer
treatment facilities. This particular person, from 1991 to 1994, was arrested
approximately 30 to 40 times. He also had some accidents that caused medical problems. His
total bill in a four year period of time was $400,000. Now a treatment center could be
done for the state for $2,000 or $3,000 a year at a work facility or something. I can give
you two or three more examples of these individuals that went out. One was thrown from a
three story building downtown with broken bones. Whatever happened to him I'll never know,
but what it costs to stay in the public has to be enormous. Fortified liquors do more damage to brain and liver that
regular alcohol products, and as I did the research in 1994, 30% of the rest are alcohol
related. I would like to know from the state and from the Board, as to why people are not
listed as being arrested for alcohol? Booking tells me law prevents us from listing a
person being arrested for alcohol. This I do not understand. Fifty percent of Juvenile
arrests are alcohol or drug related. Ten percent of all emergency calls are alcohol
related. Death certificates do not necessarily recognize the fact that a person died
because of an alcohol related problem. The treatment facilities only, that we have at the
time being, only have approximately a 5% success rating in treatment. We do not have
facilities that will keep people up to five years. Now from the experts in alcoholism that
I have talked to, it can take up to five years to turn a person around, before their brain
and the liver reconstruct themselves, and even five years may not be successful. As you
can tell, I'm anti-fortified liquors and wines and believe they should be removed from all
facilities - period. They're the most dangerous piece of alcohol that is out there. I worked with juvenile for awhile, I had a 15 year old
addicted alcoholic, a real nice kid, I sent a letter to the court, what happened? Nothing.
Another thing that I would think of, which is the same thing in pharmacy. If I sold all
the drugs to the people I knew were addicts, our problem is to sell the drugs and keep
people from becoming addicts. The last comment, since I'm running out of time, I think
the state ought to consider the possibility of issuing ID cards for the purpose of
purchasing liquor. If they get arrested, they get their ID cards pulled, or if there are
problems, but I would strongly believe this date, to consider some type of a purchase
license for the purpose of purchasing alcoholic products. In regards to your community
thing, it could be a difficult thing to impose. I can see restrictions on quantities, on
types, in certain areas, particularly like Third Avenue in Spokane, Sprague, and things of
that nature. Thank you for the time. Tim Conley, Spokane Police Department: My name is
Tim Conley. I'm with the Spokane Police Department, and I'm the licensing officer as well
as handling special police problems. The guidelines that determine neighborhood livability
are what I think myself and a few more people are going to talk about -- the excessive
noise, public inebriation, trespassing, fights, public elimination of bodily waste. Before I became a licensing officer, I was working downtown
and these were things that we dealt with on a constant basis, on a daily basis, and a lot
of times where the problem was going on, there was either a high alcohol beer or a large
container of beer close by. Part of my job is checking out transient camps as far as
nuisances, and every time I check out one of those I find a large pile of 40 ounce bottles
of beer, or high-octane beer as they like to call it. It's a given that we're going to
find it there. A year ago, I was working downtown at Sprague and Washington, and I was
assaulted by a subject who had a 64 ounce bottle of beer that he had just bought, and was
drinking on the sidewalk. So, we see these problems on a daily basis, especially in the
downtown area. You can look at the map. The map is the 1997-98 liquor violations for the
city of Spokane. On that map, 726 violations are listed, 398 of those violations occurred
downtown, which is defined for the purposes of this map as between Division and Cannon,
Fifth and the river. That's over half of the violations, and it's probably doe because of
the way that the neighborhood is made up down there. The accessibility of these large,
foot high containers and high alcohol beer is very simple to get. So, that's where we have
most of our problem. So if we need to identify an impact area, I think we've got a real
good chance of doing that. What I'd like to do now is turn this over to, I believe
it's Tim Turner, from Solid Waste, who has what it costs to clean up what these types of
alcohol bring about. Tim Turner, City of Spokane: My name is Tim Turner,
I work for the Code Enforcement as a Litter Control Board person, and starting in June, we
had a DOE grant from the Department of Ecology, where we would use work release to clean
up litter there, and I have approximately about thirteen locations where we cleaned up a
total of 3,288 pounds, probably 60 to 70% of it all beer bottles, fortified wines, that
type of activity. A ten-man crew worked a total of 71 hours -- 239 bags of garbage. These
are all located within like a six-block radius of Sprague and Palomountain, which is a
location of a small market that distributes this alcohol. Besides the items of litter,
there's mattresses. This was the public right-of-way. We cleaned up these vacant lots. The
interior of the vacant lots are the responsibility of the property owners, and those are
still more costs to be given into consideration for clean-ups of this. We spent
approximately $3,200 on these thirteen locations. And that's really about all I have to
say. And that's just touching a small, very small area. Not from downtown or Hilliard, or
other areas that need cleaning all the time. There's certain areas, like say, Sprague and
Eerie, where we'd clean probably in the whole year probably six or seven times, and
probably two tons of garbage -- bottles, wine, you name it. Scott Emmerson, City of Spokane: I'm Scott Emerson,
I work with Code Enforcement, the city of Spokane. I work with Tim Turner. The information
that was just given is a sampling of what we encounter in this city. And at that one
location, as was discussed, with the amount of material cleaned up, most of these
locations are where transients are gathering to drink the large bottles of beer and the
fortified wines. These problems are brought into the neighborhood. The purpose of Code
Enforcement is basically to keep neighborhoods neighborly. And what we're finding is, is
that these transients come to these locations, like the market that's located there on
Sprague, and they purchase the alcohol and then go into the neighborhoods to drink it. So,
we find where these transients are taking the alcohol, to vacant houses, to vacant lots,
and that severely impacts the livability for the people who actually reside in these homes
are homeowners, and who ultimately have to pick up the cost for the clean ups, the damage
to their properties, as well as having to deal with the urination in public and the fights
and the litter problems that are inherent with that. So, again, it's a major cost item,
not only for the city, but it's a major cost for the neighborhoods who have to put up with
the transients coming to these locations where they're being routinely served large
container alcohol. Thank you. Kevin Kilgore, CWI Security: My name is Kevin
Kilgore and I'm the area manager for CWI Security here in Spokane, and we provide security
for the Spokane Intermodal Facility, which is the Greyhound and the Amtrak station located
downtown. And it's a historic building which has been remodeled, and it's a nice facility,
however, we have a regular flow of the CPIs and all the other people involved in security
downtown, we all know them, we all trespass them, and they just go from one place to
another, and on any given day a third to one half of one or both of the garbage containers
out in front of the terminal are full of 40 ounce bottles. Another part of the problem is that, not only do the people
coming into our city on the busses and trains, they encounter these people when they get
off of the bus and the train in the terminal, but some of the people who get off of the
busses and trains, if they have a layover before their next connection, they'll go find,
this seems like the number one thing to do, recreation for bus riders is to get drunk
while you're waiting for the bus. The problem with that is, after the two bus hijackings
at Greyhound had a couple of years ago, they have a zero tolerance program now for people
who are intoxicated, and as the driver's boarding the bus at the door, if he decides
they're too drunk to travel, he will not allow them on the bus and at that point we have
to remove them. At that point the rules don't allow us to let them stay in the terminal,
and so we have to call de-tox or push them out the door. We get the ones that come in
looking for a place to sleep, especially during the winter, now that it's cold. You wake
them up and they make references to your heritage and your mother, and all this other
stuff, and it's like their God-given right to be there and if you tell them they have to
leave and try to help them leave, then they want to fight and then we have to get the
police involved, and go through the whole... They just, you know, rotate them through the
jail. If we could get alcohol impact area established downtown
and control some of the sources of these fortified wines and the 40 ounce malt liquors,
and some of those other things, I think that might help us eliminate some of the problem,
because I know we're trying to revitalize downtown and make it someplace that the citizens
of Spokane and visitors to Spokane want to come. Otherwise, I remember in 1974, before
Expo, I can close my eyes and picture Trenton, Maine and the railroad yard down there. We
used to go downtown and glue coins to the sidewalk and watch the drunks try to pick them
up. I mean, that type of thing, and now when we built the Expo and did all that, we pushed
them away somewhere and now they're all coming back. And I think if we could eliminate
some of the sources of the fortified alcohol, that might be a small step. The other step, obviously, is society has to come up with
some kind of a social and medical programs and that type of thing, to address the people,
because taking away the alcohol is obviously curing the symptoms, not the disease. Tom Showalter, Showie's, Inc.: I came here
originally to kind of get some information from the meeting. I received this in the mail
and read it over and became quite concerned over how broad these regulations and
guidelines are. And then I became more concerned when I found out about the hearing, and
to all appearances, this seems like it's a done deal, which even makes me more concerned
that this has been fast-tracked, I guess, through the Liquor Board and through the state
to become the rules when nobody had heard of it yet. Or at least I hadn't. I try to keep
up on things. I'm somewhat concerned from what I'm hearing from the
crowd, too. I'm concerned about what's to be accomplished here. Are we trying to stop
people from selling alcohol, or are we trying to stop the people from drinking alcohol?
Are we concerned about fortified wines, or are we concerned about large bottles? When I
read these regulations, it's very nebulous to me, I guess kind of vague. Are we targeting
a licensed premise which sells alcohol by the bottle, drink or whatever? Or are we
targeting grocery stores, where it's quite a bit cheaper for people to go and buy alcohol
in large containers. And, when I think about this a little bit I become concerned because
it's not a Safeway or Rosar's that you're going to close. It's not the Washington State
Liquor Store you're going to close. It's the mom and pop. The small guy that's probably
going to be identified and targeted by these rules and regulations. Just by reading them,
they are. One of the other things I'm hearing here, and I agree with
very much, is in the state of Washington we do not have the facilities or the capability
to take care of the person that overindulges. Seems like he is hauled off to detox and
released the next day. There's no way to take him off the street and to break the cycle of
overindulgence. So I think this is something that needs to be looked into. I thank you for
the time that could speak here and I would hope that this would not be passed immediately,
and some more thought would be given to this proposal. Rick Jost, Washington State Department of Corrections:
I'm Rick Jost, Washington State Department of Corrections. I'm a Community Corrections
Officer. I work out of East Central Cops, which is a neighborhood substation where we have
partnered with Code Enforcement and the police department to work on problems in the
neighborhood, and for the past four years we have worked quite diligently in dealing with
problems in the central and main issues we dealt with first was working on a significant
problem with drug houses, and we have consistently worked with a partnership with three or
four agencies involved in this Cop Shop, and we've had a significant impact in dealing
with the closing down of drug houses and this type of activity. And in the process of
dealing with this, we've noticed in our area, which has been there a long time, a
significant problem with transients and other types and the people we supervise that are
on drugs, whether they're using cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, or alcohol, it's all
substance abuse. When you see it all tied together, what we find is a
significant problem with the sale in our area of large bottles of beer and fortified wines
and so on. In our partnership up to date, we've been able to have a significant impact
with dealing with the drug houses, as I've said, but it looks like from what is proposed
in this legislation, we can further form another partnership here with the state Liquor
Board, in trying to deal with another problem we have in the neighborhood, which is
related to the sale of large quantities, or large bottles containers of beer and fortified
wines, and we would look at this as something that would be beneficial to the
neighborhood. And as an example, there was a significant problem in Portland, Oregon, in
which we had, which the last gentleman spoke to, small mom and pop businesses who were
involved with selling these types of containers of beer and wine. The police department
and other agencies got together with these businesses to deal with this problem, just
basically changing the sales pattern of the liquor, and what they managed to do was the
businesses got together with the police department and then made these changes, got rid of
the large beer containers and so on, and they saw the transients eventually leave the
neighborhood, and this is what we have in East Central. We have a large transient problem
like downtown, related to these type of beer sales. They got the transients out of the
neighborhood and then the small mom and pop stores, just started selling other items in
the store, and the businesses never closed, just now the regular people in a neighborhood,
who live in a neighborhood started to come in and use these stores. Right now we have a
lot of people in the neighborhood who are afraid to go into these stores for the type of
people that are hanging around there. And so, we would look forward to working with the
State Liquor Board and creating a partnership to deal with some of the problems. Thank
you. Bill Townsend, Der Litten Haus: My name is Bill
Townsend I've been a licensee with the State Liquor Board here for about 18 years now. I'm
very much against seeing any more people regulate our industry. We have an excellent
Liquor Department. Sometimes we get some excellent law enforcement officers that come in
and I've had them come in and say well here's a little problem we've got Bill. Your ID
check has not been very good and we'd appreciate you take care of it or they will come in
and do it for me. I don't want to see any more people, we have a City Council in
Clarkston, most small towns do, we have a Mayor, we have a Police Department, Sheriffs
Department and the Liquor Department, all of them regulating our business. And if there's
a problem in my business they come over, tell me what it is and they expect me to do
something about it. And I do and I'm very much against seeing anybody else regulate the
way we do business. Thank you. Zita Klassen, Smitty's Barrel: I concur with Bill
[Townsend]. Terry Lawhead, Downtown Spokane Partnership: Hi, I'm
Terry Lawhead. I am the Operations Director for the Downtown Spokane Partnership, an
organization trying to revitalize downtown Spokane. I administer different programs that
try to deliver services to make downtown Spokane look fun, more livable, and a nice place
to invest money. I like alcohol. I drink wine, I drink beer, I drink liquor,
you know, it's fine. We're not trying to create a Puritan situation here, however, the two
individuals in the back are ambassadors, they work to provide hospitality services to
people downtown and to be the eyes and ears for police for what we call street disorder.
There's a lot of street disorder, it is primarily driven by alcohol. They contact several
thousand individuals, a lot of them are repeat contacts but several thousand individuals a
year who have over consumed alcohol. 75% of those individuals pan handle in order to fuel,
to get some money. That intimidates people, that causes street disorder that makes it a
less livable place in my estimation. And it makes a big problem; and it costs a lot of
money to remedy. Ninety-nine percent of the aggressive encounters of these individuals are
the individuals who are drunk. The other 1% is substance abuse of another kind. So I welcome tools for the downtown neighborhood and all
neighborhoods to counter the negative circumstances with over consumption. It's not trying
to put anybody out of business and we like places that are fun so alcohol and American
life is part of having fun. So it's a balance and it's to empower people to provide the
level of quality of life that they feel they're entitled to of where they live and work.
And I appreciate everything the Liquor Board has done and hope to continue to work with
them on this issue and on behalf of my rate payers and the residents that I work for and
the downtown, and throughout the city. Thank you. John McKinney: My name's John McKinney. I'm a
landlord here in town. And I just wanted to relay an incident that occurred on December
22nd here in Spokane. My wife and I own three lots on the river across from Mission Park
and our tenant had notified us that she felt that there was a fellow that was laying out
in that lot. I drove down there, it was about five below zero, fellow was lying out there
wrapped up in a camouflage cotton blanket at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon with one bottle
of Night Train wine empty beside him. I went over, I shook the fellow and told him that he
was going to have to move along off of our property. And asked him if I could give him a
ride into detox or to the mission down on Trent Avenue. And he said that he couldn't go to
the mission because he was drunk and they wouldn't allow him into the mission because he
was intoxicated and I left him, I left him there and felt bad about that and came back the
next day and the other bottle of Night Train wine was there empty as was his blanket that
was soaked and frozen solid by that time. It's only three lots, not a big piece of property but at
least four times a year I've got to go down there at my own expense and pick up these
bottles of liquor and wine and beer and I'll take half a pick up load four times a year
off of the property. I've cut down all of the trees and bushes on the property and it
seems amazing to me that I'd say 90% of the bottles are fortified wine bottles and we're
located, where this property is located is approximately four blocks east of the corner of
Helena and Sprague. And they still have the tags on them from a particular market that
sells that fortified wine. I think, and enough said, it's a sad situation, it's too bad
that those people can't get services from the State, but they can't. But, you know, there's another issue too, I don't think
that this regulation is really speaking to restaurant licensees. Having been involved in
the restaurant business myself in the past, I find that restaurant employees are very,
very good employees as far as over service is concerned and as far as checking ID is
concerned. What I have a problem with is I see these 20, 22 year old checkers in these
grocery stores that are not going to confront a 45, 50 year old, big beefy outdoor fellow
and tell him that he can't buy his bottle of Night Train. So I really think that I speak in support of the
regulation, I think we need to do something about it, it's a tremendous cost to the
community to have these fellows with that cheap wine. It just seems to me that if you can
buy a bottle of Night Train, I don't know how much it costs, but under $5, you're going to
sell that to an alcoholic that's an obvious alcoholic, a road warrior, a fellow that's on
the street. You know that's just like giving a loaded gun to a criminal. We're enabling
those people to ruin their lives continually. That's all I have to say, thank you. The thing is that the high potency wines and the malt
liquors that are sold in very large containers, they're getting up there. There getting a
higher drunk, they're getting it cheaper and they're getting it faster then they would be
if they were just sitting around drinking a six pack of beer or a regular bottle of wine.
I understand that in other parts of the country they're coming out with even larger
containers, I heard somebody else mention something like a 64 or 62 ounce. I even
understand that other parts of the country they're even larger containers. This high
potency is just rot gut wine. In addition, another fact to take into consideration is
these particular products, as opposed to drinking regular level, I think, believe it's 2%
wine or a regular old 12 even 16 oz can of beer, is if a person's been drinking this rot
gut wine or this strong potency malt liquors, it has a heck of an effect, they're not just
drunk. They're literally, they don't know what they're doing. They go into black outs,
they go into DT's and the results of these black outs and then you start getting into you
really high crimes. You're talking about everything from homicide to robbery, people start
doing things that they normally would not do. And these high potency wines and these malt
liquors expedite that. If they were just drinking beer there might be that one moment
where at least they have enough rationality left to say well no, this is wrong and they
won't do whatever act this is. These other two products it's puts them there a lot further
then they know how to handle, then you're asking for a lot more problems. Now, I like to
drink just like everybody else, I enjoy my beer just like the next man but these two
products are really for far advance stages of alcoholism, those are the people that drink
it and society is the one that's going to have to pick up the pieces. Thank you. Ian Johnstone, General Manager, Jopo, Inc.: I'm Ian
Johnstone, General Manager of Jopo, Incorporated. My concern with the way this is we're
dealing with situations that are dealing with alcoholic, long term alcoholics. We're
dealing with, as I've heard these people talk from mainly the downtown area, let's say we
make the downtown an alcohol impact area, and those the people are going to move somewhere
else. Are they going to expand that AIA, I guess my concern is the fact that it's a very
broad. It has very far reaching ramifications. And I'm sorry that there are a lot of
alcoholics out there and in the downtown area but those people could be transients, they
could move to other areas. We have 14 stores in Spokane. If these people continue to move
into 14 different locations we could have 14 different AIA areas which could impact all
our stores. Now I'm not really talking about fortified beers and wines,
if we do choose to eliminate those are they going to use something else? Are they going to
find something else? I believe in as much in our policies and procedures the clerks, our
clerks do not sell alcohol to inebriated people. However there's other ways of doing it.
They could steal it. I mean we have instant reports that I could show people where they
come in an take our 12 packs right out of our coolers because we don't chase people down,
that is our company policy. So I guess as I sit here and I read this, in essence I
agree with some of it but I'm concerned that there are far reaching ramifications that we
don't know about and we don't have any way of controlling until we get into those areas. Finally, I guess I like the opportunity for all of us to be
here and talk but I'm really concerned about the fact that there's only been three
retailers up here and about seven or eight public figures and I guess dealing with
downtown, I guess Spokane is more than just a downtown. And you know, I'm sorry, you know,
if we don't sell it to them, someone else will. And that's something that I can't control.
I wish I could say that we all try to do things as well as we try to do, and I'm not
saying we do it 100% correctly all the time. So I appreciate your time. Matt Stodder, Empire Beverage: Hello, I'm Matt
Stodder with Empire Beverage, we do distribute some of the wines and beers that we're
speaking of. I'd just like to remind you guys, an average fortified wine is about 13%
alcohol where an average bottle of wine is 7 to 8 so we're talking 5%. And average malt
liquor is about 7% and an average beer is about 4%. So we look at it saying that it's a
very high potent but when you look at how a distilled spirit is and the difference it's
really very minimal. I also agree with what this gentleman is saying about you
isolate downtown Spokane, you isolate over in Seattle, Pioneer Square, wherever you do,
those people are going to go somewhere else. They're going to find it, you're just going
to be increasing that area every, every year, you're going to increase it to where it's
going to be everywhere, because they will find that. They will go and find that wine and
if they don't, like he says, they're going to steal it. And you're going to have bigger
problem with theft then you ever had so, that's all I'd like to say. I appreciate it. Terry Lawhead: I think if you have the opportunity
to have dialogue is where the answer is going to come from and I think it's important that
we all recognize that for a retailer and a social person or someone trying to solve the
social consequences of this disease, for them to talk is relatively unprecedented and I
can say that because the Security Ambassadors have created links with mental health and
with detox and the police and fire and parents and spouses to try to get dialogue going
about some of the problems that these individuals face. And the risk that they're putting
themselves. One of the ironies in reference to something that was said
about displacement, they're going to go everywhere, is already happening in Seattle and in
Spokane because we have a business improvement district and that's why that is so
successful at encountering these individuals and saying you can't do that here. That
they're going to the edges of the boundary, the artificial boundary, so they are being
displaced. It's already happening. What we don't want, we're not deliberately trying to do
that. So we're successful and other neighborhoods now are encountering this already, this
won't be a year from now this is now. So we want that dialogue with the adjacent
neighborhoods and all neighborhoods and not think that well we're done with it they're out
of sight out of mind; we won't worry about what's happening in other neighborhoods. So
this kind of a comprehensive strategy really bodes well for the kind of thing we want to
do. We want to address in a comprehensive way and again, alcohol is with us, some of these
social diseases are with us, we're not trying to clean up everything on earth. But it's a
good start, it's going to be a tremendous amount of dialogue, a tremendous amount of
controversy about it, that's granted. But you know, what's the alternative? Bert Porter: I would particularly like to challenge
a statement and that's the difference in alcohol content between regular liquor and
fortified. This has bothered me for a long time. All alcohol products have impurities
whether it's Seagrams 7 or what. Different people are allergic to different alcohol.
Different people are allergic to different alcohols, some people can drink one type of
liquor and some people can't drink a certain type of liquor. And it's all because of the
impurities and the liquor in the manufacture of that product. And for some reason, and I
have a feeling, that something in the manufacture of the fortified wines and liquors
there's more than just the alcohol there. I suspect there's other chemicals involved there
because it has bothered me for a long time. Because the alcohol content is just not that
much larger than regulars they get, it knocks them for a total roll. So to me there has to
be something else other than just the alcohol present and so I'd just like to bring that
issue up. John Flight, Jopo, Inc.: My name is John Flight with
Jopo Incorporated. I guess one of the problems I have is that we're also a retailer and a
couple of different people have come up here and talking about the alcoholics and all this
other stuff and then, you know, we like our beer, you know, just like the rest of the
guys, the problem that I see is that we're going to take the fortified wines out and the
malt liquors out, you think that we get to where nobody is selling those things that the
drunks are all going to quit drinking. No, they're going to start drinking the Budweisers
and stuff like that and then Joe Q. Public isn't going to be able to get his Budweiser
because that's going to become on that same list. And so that's all I have to say. Richard Isaacs, Department of Corrections: I'm
Richard Isaacs and I work for the Department of Corrections, State of Washington. I work
in the downtown neighborhood, big supervision office that works out of community
orientated policing station. I work the downtown area, I work with the Ambassadors, I work
with Terry Lawhead, I work with the police in terms of trying to clean up the downtown
neighborhood. You talk of the inebriates. You talk of safe neighborhoods, you talk of
folks that are a basic common nuisance. Six years I've been downtown I see that all the
time part of my folks that I supervise are part of that problem also. What I think and I
think this is just a comment, is it's a good rule, I support it. Partnership definitely
with the Liquor Control Board, it's a choice, it's a pattern that people lack the
discretion. The rule is there for those who choose to go above and beyond their common
sense of duty. I think this is something that is long needed and if probably wouldn't
exist if retailers, tavern owners, grocery stores, neighbors, etceteras could use their
own discretion in terms of when to cut it off and when not to sell it. That's all I want
to say. Rick Albin, Spokane Police Department: My name is
Rick Albin, I'm a police officer for the City of Spokane. Today, January 6th marks my 25th
anniversary with the this police department. I then work with the downtown court for 15
years, I've been a neighborhood resource officer in problem solving the downtown for the
last four years. When some of the officers came on 25 years ago we were selling 20%
alcohol downtown, Mogan David 20/20, etc. We were taking 15 and 20 intoxicated people to
detox every run we went. We had wagons, we'd pick them up like cord wood, we took them out
there. Downtown businesses entered into a voluntary agreement not to sell the 20/20 wines,
that's the 20% wines. The change we saw was drastic, we weren't taking 15 or 20 winos at
one trip we were taking four or five. If we were to enact this improvement district and we
were to see the drastic changes that we saw between 20/20 wines and the 11 or 12% we're
seeing now, it would be a tremendous improvement. By far the greatest number of calls for
service are complaints that I get from citizens from the downtown core are associated with
the alcohol and pan handling and the people who need to go to detox. So, I highly support
this and I hope people will think about it and that's it. Thank you. Ms. Massey: Ms. Massey, and I'm here as a citizen. I
don't think targeting the sellers, holding them responsible the for the buyer's actions is
completely the way this should go. The alcohol impact area I agree with the gentleman here
that eventually all of Washington is going to be an alcohol impact area, they're just
going to move to where the alcohol is being sold. And taking the alcohol out of the
stores, you know, before we know it Crown Royal is going to be the cheapest liquor they
can get a hold of. So, I agree with parts of it but I don't think that holding the seller
responsible is the way to go. Thank you. Greg Christiansen, Vice President, Columbia
Distributing: Greg Christiansen, I'm the Vice President for Columbia Distributing. We
have distributorships in Seattle, Spokane and Portland also. The truth of the matter is
that this proposal doesn't accomplish, I think, the goals that we want to get done. The
problems will move and I think, not disagreeing to your point in Portland, but we have
serviced that area through that whole transition and the problems did move. Systematically
through the town. It didn't really solve the problem, they found alternative packages,
alternative liquor stores, etceteras. The person, and I think speaking for they would
really feel the impact, is the small retailer. The "C" store operator,
convenience store, those are the ones, the small business man will feel the greatest
impact on this. So, we oppose it for that reason, we think there are other solutions,
other alternatives that haven't been tried or explored and we push for that direction. Virginia Newell: I forgot to tell you that while the
liquor problem is bad we have a new pornography store right across the street. The were
some rooms, slipped back into history, but are right across from the pornography place
that we're trying to fight to get out of them. And I volunteer at Cops Northeast and I do
hope that you'll consider what I've said. Tom Showalter: One short thought that I missed from
my notes the first time. The fact that the regulations and laws are already in place to
control the sale of alcohol to people that are intoxicated. It appears to me that this is
somewhat of regulation that is moving jurisdiction from locals to the Liquor Board, and
added responsibility to the Liquor Board that they don't already have or maybe they do
have the power, it's just transferring some more jurisdiction, some more rules and
regulations to another regulatory agency. One gentleman spoke of people going into
abandoned houses. There's trespassing laws to handle that if the local jurisdiction
chooses to handle it. There are laws, rules and regulations in place, presently, to handle
many of these problems if we choose to do that and make that our priority other than
something else. Or maybe more law enforcement at the local level. Thank you. Tim Turner: Tim Turner again, from the City of
Spokane. The most incidences are of the violation are along this one area. What runs along
here is basically the rail runners. The biggest amount of the cleanups that we do are from
transient areas. The transients use it as a freeway, basically. It's their Northwest
Boulevard. They will not venture up to [inaudible], they won't be allowed. They stand out
too much. They can use this as their way of getting out town and into town. That's why
naming certain areas where these things are taking place and the litter is taking place
and the drinking is all near the rail roads. So it is specific locations and I don't think
it will spread. Other neighborhoods won't allow it. Board Member Brydon thanked those present for
turning out and participating in the hearing. He invited interested parties to submit
further comment to the Board in writing. He stated the testimony received during the
hearings this will be evaluated before the Board reaches its decision on how to proceed on
this rule making. Board Member Brydon stated in conclusion of the discussion,
he wished to acknowledge several things stated during the hearing. He indicated he
believes it is important to understand that this is not a ultimate, simple solution to a
chronic historic problem. Board Member Brydon stated what differentiates this approach is
something that hasn't happened before, and that is that it's an effort to be a partner
with a whole range of interests, agencies, the private sector, the social service
community, and to try and arrive at an approach to addressing the problem of the chronic
public inebriate and providing help and support that hasn't been undertaken before. Board Member Brydon also stated he heard comments to the
effect of what he calls the "squeeze the toothpaste problem," where you clamp
down on one part of the problem in a particular neighborhood and it emerges in another
neighborhood. He stated while no one is going to deny that this won't occur, part of the
solution is for all of the communities that are involved and concerned to be on their
toes. Board Member Brydon indicated there are certain competitive pressures that retailers
face. They're worried if they don't stock this product and offer it to these customers
then they're competitor down the street will stock that product and offer it to their
customers. He stated he believes smart retailers will recognize that this is not an
element that their current customer base or that the community in which they do business
wants to see arrive in their door steps, and they will just say no, we don't have the
product. But to do that it takes a certain amount of communication and cooperation across
competitive lines and with police agencies and social service agencies. Board Member Brydon stated he also heard a speaker observe
that there isn't a lot of state resources available to help the chronic public inebriate,
and that's a very true problem. He stated the believes this problem is recognized broadly,
and some of the local communities are trying to address that by better coordinating
available services, by getting people talking to one another, and by pulling down the
barriers that prevent social service agencies from talking with one another. In conclusion, Board Member Brydon stated the proposed
rules are not an ultimate solution, but rather are one piece of the approach that is based
on local action and voluntary efforts. The meeting was recessed at 3:34 p.m., to reconvene
January 7, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. in Yakima, for a continuation of the public hearing on
proposed rule making. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 a.m. at the
Oxford Suites, 1701 Terrace Heights Way, Yakima, by Board Member Charles F.
Brydon. Also in attendance was Kim O'Neal, Assistant Attorney General. Continuation of Public Hearing on Proposed Rule Making: Board
Member Brydon welcomed those present to a public hearing on proposed rules regarding
alcohol impact areas and neighborhood livability. Board Member Brydon stated at the specific request of
Governor Gary Locke, the Liquor Control Board has been part of a public-private
partnership known as the Chronic Public Inebriate Systems Solutions Committee. He stated
this committee has been chaired by Patrick Vanzo of the Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health, and it has brought together a unique array of public and private interests
to craft a multidimensional approach to the challenges of chronic public inebriation.
Board Member Brydon indicated the proposed rules being presented today are but one piece
of a mosaic of actions that are being undertaken to address this social challenge. Board Member Brydon stated the proposed rules also address
the question of neighborhood livability, or the impact a single licensee may have on the
livability and civility of it's community. He indicated this rule is intended to address
some unfinished business that arose from an early 1960s Pierce County Superior Court
decision. Board Member Brydon explained the court asked that the Board to define the basis
for addressing neighborhood impacts arising from the sale of alcohol, and this is what the
rule endeavors to accomplish. Board Member Brydon stated the hearing will open a summary
of the rules by the Director of the Board's Licensing and Regulation Division, David
Goyette. David Goyette, Director, Licensing and Regulation Division: David Goyette, Director of Licensing and Regulation, stated the proposed rules are divided into two sections -- the creation of alcohol impact areas and new criteria associated with neighborhood livability. He stated in both of these parts there are some important provisions that bear noting at the outset.
Mr. Goyette stated in closing, it should be noted that
these rules do not spring to life spontaneously, but they are brought to you by
communities and neighborhoods where alcohol causes real problems. He indicated the
proposed rules have been drafted in response to business groups, civic associations,
health practitioners, elected officials and neighborhood leaders who have asked the Liquor
Control Board to enter into a partnership with them to attack this problem. Board Member Brydon called for public testimony. The
speakers were given a three minute time limit. Following is a verbatim transcription of
that testimony: Howard Lenington, Dry Creek Restaurant: I guess I'll
say something. I'm Howard Lenington, Dry Creek Restaurant and Lounge, Toppenish,
Washington. I'd just like you to tell us who are the people that are going to regulate our
license and say that they can close us down for an impact if we're in an impact area? I
feel that I'm in an impact area because I'm in the lower valley. It's already been stated.
I would like to know what is going to happen with the license as things continue., if this
law goes through. Do the people have to go to the Liquor Board and say they don't want
such and such a license in operation, and then the Liquor Board comes and closes us down,
or do we have any resource to go back to, to try to keep it from being closed down? Board Member Brydon responded to Mr. Lenington's
questions. He stated, as Mr. Goyette pointed out, this is a long process that will require
a tremendous amount of public input, and will only reach the point of action by the Liquor
Board after that process has been completed. He stated it will require the action by a
local municipality to pass an ordinance establishing an alcohol impact area, and only if
the Liquor Board recognizes that action will any additional regulatory options be brought
into play. Board Member Brydon stated the Liquor Control's Board purpose for these
proposed rules is not to close down licensees; rather, the Board's purpose is to assist
communities in addressing alcohol impacts on their neighborhoods, which does not
necessarily mean the bringing about of any sort of closure of a licensee unless the
licensee absolutely refuses to cooperate and respond to the reasonable demands of the
community. Joel Tefft, Tefft Cellars: My name's Joel Tefft, I
own and operate Tefft Cellars Winery in Outlook. First, I want to compliment the Liquor
Board on doing the best they could with current regulations and encouraging voluntary
restraint on the part of retailers in this endeavor. I think that the concerns being
addressed by this new rule would largely disappear if the current rules were rigidly
enforced and adhered to. But I am concerned whenever new regulations are proposed that the
potential to discriminate against me as a business owner. In addition to still wine, I make a port wine. Mine is very
expensive, it sells for $18 to $20 a bottle. The high cost of my port, I think, eliminates
it as a alcohol of choice for people that abuse alcohol, but several years ago they
doubled the tax rate on port, which seriously affected my ability to do business. It adds
about 70 cents a bottle to my product, and the justification for this increase was to use
the money to solve some of the problems with alcohol abuse. And then, my first thing that concerns me about AIAs is the
size. The proposed rules state that the AIA comprises a geographic area that does not
include the entire territory of the local jurisdiction. How big is that? Who sets the size
of the local jurisdiction? Does this mean that, say Pioneer Square is the target of an
AIA, the entire city of Seattle will be included? I sell a lot of wine in the Seattle
area, especially downtown with restaurants. If that's an area that's impacted, do I lose
sales on my port? Do I pay more money to have the port there? Second, in addressing specific products, I think that
they're talking about over 14% alcohol wines. As currently written, this section is too
vague. Public alcohol abusers typically look for the biggest bang for their buck. That
means they seek out a combination of the highest alcohol for the cheapest price. Unless,
I'd like to see the rules written to take care of that, so that my product isn't
discriminated against to try to keep people from buy Night Train in Pike's Street Market.
And I think a better solution would be to actually exert pressure on retailers in these
abusive areas using existing laws. At the same time, the social issues that create these
people and this problem need to be addressed, such as homelessness, drug abuse and
panhandling, which is terrorism. And why is the Washington State Liquor Control Board
trying to control something that is a social issue and should be addressed by city
government? What are the cities doing about this besides putting pressure on the Liquor
Control Board? Thank you. Shirley Puryear, Bonair Winery: Hello, I'm Shirley
Puryear, owner of Bonair Winery in Zillah. My major question to you is the neighborhood
livability. Does this apply to rural areas or is this just city areas? Our winery is
located in a small neighborhood, there are three or four houses at the end of our road.
The impact there, we get maybe four or five hundred cars on a busy weekend and I can see
these neighbors may be becoming upset. So that's my question, does it apply also to rural
areas? Board Member Brydon responded to Ms. Puryear's
question. He stated alcohol impact areas tend to be urban based problems where there are
high concentrations of licensees and the chronic public inebriate population that tends to
gather in given neighborhoods. Board Member Brydon stated the rules never envisioned a
situation like Ms. Puryear described. He stated it is theoretically possible for the local
jurisdiction in a rural area to start moving in that direction. However, the process is
intentionally set up to be a very long, extended process that requires an enormous amount
of public input at the local level, and a decision by the local elected officials, before
it would ever reach the Liquor Control Board. Shirley Puryear: Well, this makes me nervous because
there are several wineries in the Zillah area, and we are heavy impact, so I just want to
talk to you about that. James Heinle, Jackson's Sports Bar: My name is James
Heinle, part owner of Jackson's Sports Bar out here in Terrace Heights. The one main
concern I have is, is it going to be one person or one group that, kind of like he said,
if they have something out for you, they can keep chiming in the Liquor Board's ear. If
they get a call every, you know, every Saturday afternoon or every Monday morning saying,
there was an argument over there, there was an argument over there. Is that going to be
something, or when you bring in different aspects of the groups, the, I mean, the
different names, you know, groups you have mentioned. Is it going to have to be a group
effort or is this one person that can control, kind of the whole way the thing goes. Board Member Brydon responded to Mr. Heinle's
questions. He stated the process is set up to require multiple inputs, and he doesn't
believe one individual could set off this process. Board Member Brydon reiterated the
proposed rules require the municipality to make a decision in a public hearing to pass an
ordinance to create an alcohol impact area. Board Member Brydon responded to Mr. Smith: He
stated the process is set up so as to require that an extensive local voluntary effort be
undertaken before it reaches the regulatory level. The licensee would be working with
community organizations to try and craft a voluntary solution. Board Member Brydon stated
product restrictions would be a tool only when such voluntary efforts taken at the local
level do not work. He stated the alcohol impact area would not be in effect unless and
until the Liquor Control Board takes a separate step to recognize that alcohol impact
area. At that point, there is an array of tools available to try and support the local
community's efforts to arrive at a solution. Board Member Brydon stated the intent of the
rules is to target only the products of choice of the chronic public inebriate, not all
alcohol products. Ken Donahoo, Little Dutch Inn: My name's Ken
Donohue, owner of the Little Dutch Inn Tavern. My concern is that the area my tavern is
located in an 8 by 12 block area, there are eight licensed establishments. Of those eight,
five of them have license for consumption on premises and for consumption off-premises.
There are other locations such as grocery stores and mini-marts in that eight block area.
If for some reason Yakima determines this is an area that we feel that we're having
problems and we want to clean it up, how do they go about establishing which places are
the problem? For an example, it's my policy if we have a problem in the
tavern that we can't control, we call the police department. I've hired bartenders that
worked in other places in the area, and I tell them, if you have a problem and you can't
control it, call the police department. Their response is, we can't do that. We'll get in
trouble. The places they worked before would not allow them to call the police department.
Am I going to be pinpointed for that? The other question I have is, I know that if I wanted to
put a tavern in a location and it's within x-number of feet of a school, I can't get a
license. If I want to put a tavern in a place x-number of feet from a church I probably
couldn't get a license there either, yet I have a tavern that's been there for 30-plus
years and down the street, eight blocks, is Davis High School. They decided they needed a
place for alternative classes. They put it behind my tavern. Empty building across the
street, a church decided they need a place, they moved into there. Now, can they get
together and say, oh, we're here now, you can't be here? That's all I have to say. Thank
you. Board Member Brydon stated in the situation cited by
Mr. Donahoo, because the new school facility and church facility moved adjacent to the
tavern after the liquor license was approved, there's no action under the current law that
they could take to get the license cancelled simply because of their proximity. He also
clarified the law states that only public, tax supported schools within 500 feet of a
licensed premises have an absolute veto right to prevent a new license from being granted.
Gary Betschart, Spur Tavern: My name is Gary
Betshard, owner of the Spur Tavern in Harrah. First of all, I'd like to echo what Bill
Krapf said from Buena. I think we have more than enough regulations and rules governing
our operation of business now, almost to the point of putting us out of business. I could
probably stand here for a half hour telling you the comments that I hear from my customers
concerning this .08, and quite frankly, I have to agree with most of them. They're scared
to death to even come into a tavern. Harrah's a small, rural area about 20 miles southwest of
Yakima. There in that area, within a five mile radius, we have three taverns. Public
intoxication has been around probably since the oldest profession in history, and we all
know what that is. Any law, rule, governing the operation of a tavern or bar or
convenience store isn't going to change that. If you were living in the town of Harrah and
seen the number of people walking down the street that are intoxicated, and you could
probably do that on a daily basis, you could draw the conclusion that, well possibly they
came from one of the taverns. If you drew that conclusion, more often than not, you'd be
wrong. They came from home. They came from someone's car. You know, people don't
necessarily get intoxicated in a tavern. We have laws that govern that now, with the
mandatory server certification law that we now have. And I was involved in training a lot
of people in the valley and certifying them to be able to tend bar and recognize
intoxication and how to curtail intoxication, and this is just one of the many rules and
regulations that we have covering our business. And I don't disagree with it, in fact, I
agree with it, and I think everyone in this room does everything they can to see that
that's enforced. I think, rather than coming up with new rules and regulations to govern
our business, I think maybe the Liquor Board should be looking at ways of enhancing our
business and trying to help us do what we're already doing and do it better. Thank you. Howard Lenington: Howard Lenington, Dry Creek
Restaurant and Lounge in Toppenish. Don't we already have... I know when I get my liquor
license renewed, the Yakima Indian Nation's got to sign it, the city of Toppenish has got
to sign it, so if they have any problems, they don't sign it. Aren't we just putting kind
of a law on top of a law? Board Member Brydon responded to Mr. Lenington's
question. Board Member Brydon stated we are not really dealing with a problem that is a
circumstance in rural communities, but it is a major circumstance in urban centers. He
stated he has been in any urban center in the state where the local authorities aren't
aware of a neighborhood in which concentrations of chronic public inebriates occur. Board
Member Brydon indicated each community is different, and the responses needed to address
the chronic public inebriacy issue are different. Board Member Brydon stated the Board is attempting to
provide one part of a set of solutions that are needed to effectively come to grips with
the problems associated with chronic public inebriation. He stated chronic public
inebriates are terribly sick, and they are gaining access to a legal drug that is
furthering their illness. Board Member Brydon stated the Board has attempted to craft a
series of rules that will enable a community who chooses to get its organizations and
citizens together to come to grips with these problems. Howard Lenington: But what I am concerned with, is
when you do get this law stronger, which I feel that we're already in effect, this law is
more or less in, but like at my place. We're in an impact area for people down Toppenish
who are drunken driving and wreck and they had the state of Washington supply money for
the police departments to come down there and spend a lot of overtime. And my concern is,
my place from 10:00 at night until 2:00 is surrounded by police cars, and so you get
another law, stronger, on us again, they'll just be shutting us down rather than putting
the police cars down there. The overserving doesn't come out of my bar. The overserving
comes from house parties and stuff like this. I don't think there's been a wreck in
Toppenish, or anybody killed in Toppenish city limits in I don't know when. And I've been
there pretty near 20 years. But they still impact my bar, because it's easier to find
someone that they can give a DWI to that comes out of there, than it is to patrol the
roads and.. and pick the people up where the problems are. It makes them look good on the
record with all these DWIs because my restaurant's closed down at like 8:00 so just a bar
menu, so you know they're in there drinking. And that's what they sit there and wait for.
And this is what this impact that the government is doing to my location and to all these
locations in lower valley. Their just emphasizing the bars, no emphasizing the rural areas
where people are getting killed. And this is the only thing I'm worried about. Thanks. Bill Krapf: Bill Krapf, from Buena Tavern down in
lower valley. The only other thing that kind of bothers me about it, is nobody's mentioned
the liquor store. State of Washington, right? Ah, well, the only thing we've been talking
about is the places that sell liquor or stores, do you honestly believe downtown Seattle,
if you closed the place that was selling, the store down there, that the alcoholics aren't
going to move and go to another area, to start out with? And if the state is really
serious about this, why are we still selling liquor out of the State of Washington? You
know, out of the liquor stores? I mean, if their going to get serious, let's really crack
down. Let's go after everybody, not just a select group of us here. And I'm hoping that
this thing does not even go through. I'm just so regulated now I just can't even imagine. Board Member Brydon stated he thinks it is fair to
ask what the state is doing with respect to the operation of its liquor stores. He
indicated in those areas of Seattle, for example, where the Board has already been working
with community groups, the state stores have taken certain product off shelves. Board
Member Brydon stated state stores in other communities will take that kind of action in
those neighborhoods that are seriously impacted by chronic public inebriation. Joel Tefft: Joel Tefft with Tefft Cellars again, I
had one other thought as I was sitting there, is that you mentioned alcohol being a legal
drug. You take the legal away from them they're going to probably go find something else. Rick Smith: Rick Smith, again, Smitty's Convenience
Stores. Your point about Spokane having an area on the tracks there, reminds me of how it
used to be in Yakima along Front Street. Yakima has taken a lot of steps to clean up this
town, and the Blue Banjo is probably one of the last areas that's, excuse me if the owner
of that is here, but in that area, that is where it all was. I mean, years ago they had
the Corral strip joint, but from those years to these years, Yakima has taken a lot of
effort in cleaning up. The mission is housed on North First Street, which also helped
move, not really move, but when they were housed over there, on Front Street, they were
crawling all over, I mean, there was inebriates all over. The mission has done a wonderful
job of cleaning up this area and has a nice home for a lot of homeless people, and I've
seen this area improve Everybody here is a liquor licensees, I guess, enforcing
the laws, with everything from tobacco to alcohol. We are. We are certainly being watched,
so we have made quite an effort to follow the law and improve the neighborhoods, and to be
compared to a Pike Street or whatever street it is in Spokane. Is this a law that's going
to be state-wide, so if there was problems around those two cities we are going to be
scrutinized? Kim O'Neal explained while the rules apply
state-wide, the alcohol impact area would be community by community. An alcohol impact
area would be requested by local public officials with input from the local population, so
an alcohol impact area set up in Seattle would not affect Yakima. Rick Smith: And that's how you would identify an
impact zone. Kim O'Neal responded that it would be up to the
local government. Rick Smith: And then would notices be given out and
you would say that you have a chance to clean up your area before you have to remove
products from your shelf? Board Member Brydon stated the proposed rules have
been crafted so as to require an enormous amount of local effort before it moves to the
point where it would be brought up as an ordinance for public discussion and public vote
in a local community. He stated the intention is to try and get the solution at the local
level, and only if there is frustration and an inability to solve the problem on the local
level would it be raised up to the state Liquor Control Board for review and some
potential action.
|
