Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvland
There is a policy idea that would create two classes of city. Call it "Class 1" and "Class 2" city. Class 1 city can self-declare and have one set of booze rules, Class 2 can elect to have our stupid existing rules. There really is no reason why Salt Lake City should even have the same regs as Manti. Let Manti be Manti. Let cities be cities.
|
The obvious solution to this very real license logjam crisis is to allow counties to set the number of liquor licenses. Marvland is correct that all areas of the state aren’t alike. But the state MUST set the overall policy given the powers granted it under the constitution and specifically the 21st amendment. It would be so inefficient to have huge differences county to county.
IMO, The legislature could do itself a big favor by fixing the license logjam, opening more stores (which they are doing to their credit), modernizing the tap restrictions and happy hour, and also allow wine in grocery stores. I believe if these reforms don’t happen in the near future (5 years or so) they’ll be a vote on privatization and it will pass.
The liquor issue is somewhat unique to Utah given the religious tradition here. It is true that it’s usually the democrats (liking state monopolies) in other states who have opposed privatization. But I don’t think the conservatives who don’t want to modernize liquor laws are out of whack philosophically. The argument saying conservatives should support privatization is a libertarian position, not a conservative one. Conservatives don’t worship the alter of the market or business interests at all costs. There are other externalities to measure. It is order, not egalitarianism or freedom that is their guiding principle.