12
Oct
2004
If you enjoy reading this newspaper and like what it offers our community, please consider participating in our bi-annual Readership Survey. It's available online at (http://www.rcreader.com/survey) ... or complete and mail the printed version found in the paper.
If you have completed a survey in the past, we greatly appreciate your input and sincerely hope you can participate once again. If you have yet to complete a survey, please consider joining the ranks of all the readers who are defining the pages you currently read.
All answers are confidential, and your contact information is shared with no other parties. The River Cities' Reader began its 12th year last week and will publish its 500th issue on October 27 - our Election Guide 2004. How fitting.
Thank you in advance for your valued input.
Liquor-License Lottery
The Davenport City Council needs to explain why it recently voted to place a moratorium on Class E liquor licenses (carryout bottled liquor) and then, in the same meeting, voted to grant the new liquor license for Aman Travel Mart at Second and Myrtle. Like Third Street Mart a few blocks away, these businesses open under the auspices of a "convenience" or small "grocery" store offering some food staples but actually thrive as beer and liquor stores. While there's nothing wrong with the free enterprise of selling America's legal drug, alcohol, how about a little conscientious planning on our city council's part? Perhaps a little thought behind how their actions affect the neighborhoods these licenses serve? The unfortunate result of such "travel" marts in central business districts that have a high density of low- to no-income residents is an increase in panhandlers, street fighting, litter and garbage, abandoned cars, passed-out drunks on doorsteps, drug deals (and overdoses), accidents requiring ambulances, and police service calls and patrols in the neighborhood. I can attest to this because our offices are located in the neighborhood of such a "convenience" store.
One has to wonder what the city council was thinking when it granted this entity its liquor license. Let's put a liquor mart right across the street from a YMCA and a day-care playground, and right at the western entrance to our $113-million River Renaissance in downtown Davenport. All of the garbage and panhandling will do wonders for our momentum, won't it?
So why doesn't the council do more integrated planning of the liquor licenses it issues? Turns out that even when a city council in Iowa denies a business its license, that person has recourse at the state level, and the state overrides local authority when it comes to such matters. In other words, even if the local council deems a business unsuitable for a neighborhood, the state can overturn its decision. Don't you wish Davenport could wield its liquor-license autonomy like it has its use of TIF?
The problem with this scenario is that there is no formal process for citizens to defend against such intrusive and destructive activity in their neighborhoods. And while the recently passed moratorium was an effort in the right direction to study the matter, the same council approved another license in an at-risk neighborhood, once again.
Consider that the liquor-license renewal fee for the city is around $75, while the renewal fee paid to the state can be as high as $3,000 for even a small liquor store. Now one starts to see why the state is so adamant about centralized control over liquor licenses.
Nevertheless, our state leaders must be held equally accountable for such a shortsighted policy. Why is some bureaucrat sitting in Des Moines more qualified to determine what is best for our neighborhoods than our own duly elected officials? The irony is that while the annual renewal fee might be attractive to the state, if such licenses continue to negatively impact a neighborhood, it results in a pervasive decrease in property taxes and has a much larger longer-term negative consequence.
If you have completed a survey in the past, we greatly appreciate your input and sincerely hope you can participate once again. If you have yet to complete a survey, please consider joining the ranks of all the readers who are defining the pages you currently read.
All answers are confidential, and your contact information is shared with no other parties. The River Cities' Reader began its 12th year last week and will publish its 500th issue on October 27 - our Election Guide 2004. How fitting.
Thank you in advance for your valued input.
Liquor-License Lottery
The Davenport City Council needs to explain why it recently voted to place a moratorium on Class E liquor licenses (carryout bottled liquor) and then, in the same meeting, voted to grant the new liquor license for Aman Travel Mart at Second and Myrtle. Like Third Street Mart a few blocks away, these businesses open under the auspices of a "convenience" or small "grocery" store offering some food staples but actually thrive as beer and liquor stores. While there's nothing wrong with the free enterprise of selling America's legal drug, alcohol, how about a little conscientious planning on our city council's part? Perhaps a little thought behind how their actions affect the neighborhoods these licenses serve? The unfortunate result of such "travel" marts in central business districts that have a high density of low- to no-income residents is an increase in panhandlers, street fighting, litter and garbage, abandoned cars, passed-out drunks on doorsteps, drug deals (and overdoses), accidents requiring ambulances, and police service calls and patrols in the neighborhood. I can attest to this because our offices are located in the neighborhood of such a "convenience" store.
One has to wonder what the city council was thinking when it granted this entity its liquor license. Let's put a liquor mart right across the street from a YMCA and a day-care playground, and right at the western entrance to our $113-million River Renaissance in downtown Davenport. All of the garbage and panhandling will do wonders for our momentum, won't it?
So why doesn't the council do more integrated planning of the liquor licenses it issues? Turns out that even when a city council in Iowa denies a business its license, that person has recourse at the state level, and the state overrides local authority when it comes to such matters. In other words, even if the local council deems a business unsuitable for a neighborhood, the state can overturn its decision. Don't you wish Davenport could wield its liquor-license autonomy like it has its use of TIF?
The problem with this scenario is that there is no formal process for citizens to defend against such intrusive and destructive activity in their neighborhoods. And while the recently passed moratorium was an effort in the right direction to study the matter, the same council approved another license in an at-risk neighborhood, once again.
Consider that the liquor-license renewal fee for the city is around $75, while the renewal fee paid to the state can be as high as $3,000 for even a small liquor store. Now one starts to see why the state is so adamant about centralized control over liquor licenses.
Nevertheless, our state leaders must be held equally accountable for such a shortsighted policy. Why is some bureaucrat sitting in Des Moines more qualified to determine what is best for our neighborhoods than our own duly elected officials? The irony is that while the annual renewal fee might be attractive to the state, if such licenses continue to negatively impact a neighborhood, it results in a pervasive decrease in property taxes and has a much larger longer-term negative consequence.
