Borough Assembly protests liquor store request
Published Friday, April 11, 2008
The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly on Thursday formally protested a businessman’s request to sell liquor from his South Fairbanks mall, which he said he plans to turn into a grocery store.
The vote mirrored a protest in March by the Fairbanks City Council.
Businessman Patrick Kohls had asked for permission to transfer a liquor license to the Cushman Street building, which currently houses the Mighty Dollar thrift store.
Opponents, including some neighbors, have noted the neighborhood already has two stores that depend solely or heavily on alcohol sales.
“Part of cleaning it up is getting the kinds of stores … in that area that would help it,” assembly member Torie Foote said. “Another package (alcohol) store is not going to do that.”
Kohls said he needed the liquor license to ensure financing for a larger grocery store. He said he would try to find a middle ground with concerned public officials by keeping cheap, strong products off his shelves.
“You have to admit that we need a grocery store there no matter what,” he said.
The proposal — and the larger issue of the availability of alcohol in South Fairbanks — drew strong disagreement between some borough officials, as it had two weeks prior for City Council members. Randy Frank said he wasn’t convinced the transfer would lead directly to more public drunkenness, as some implied.
“Unless someone can prove that to me, I think we should let this go, mainly because we need a grocery store down there,” he said.
Mayor Jim Whitaker backed the protest, as has the city’s mayor and police chief. He said he originally entered local politics two decades ago to help gut the downtown area of its visible alcohol problem.
The 6-2 assembly vote followed a twisting discussion that saw members twice entertain efforts to protest Kohls’ proposal. The first request to protest the transfer, from Foote, fell short when her motion expired without the supportive “second” motion required during public meetings. More than a half-hour later, another assembly member successfully asked that Foote’s motion be reconsidered, which led to the vote.
Kelly Brown, Luke Hopkins, Mike Musick, Guy Sattley, Nadine Winters and Foote voted to protest the license transfer. Bill Stringer and Frank voted to allow the transfer.
The borough will forward the vote as a recommendation to the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I see. The rights of other private property owners who already sell alcohol in the area trumps the rights of another property owner who wishes to do the same.
Either the city and borough remove that right from all other property owners or let the property owner have the same rights. It's the only fair and equal option.
I think if this property owner is denied his right to sell alcohol like other property owners who's property is zoned for business he should take them to court to protect his rights.
Agreed.
Do-Gooders Rule!
Mr. Whitaker got involved in politics to "gut the downtown area of its visible alcohol problem" He sure has been a sucess there! ans since when was south Fairbanks "down town" ? Now lets spend a few million dollars to "study" how we can revise "downtown" to help fill the pockets of a few property owners, including Mr. Whitaker..
WE need a grocery store here! Please do something toward that end if you do not allow this proposal.
"The rights of other private property owners who already sell alcohol in the area trumps the rights of another property owner who wishes to do the same."
No, it's the right of the *community* to make decisions they believe support public safety and health that trumps the right of the individual to run a business in any old way he or she sees fit.
I'm not saying I agree with this decision. If a liquor license is really what it takes to make a grocery store viable in South Fairbanks, then it probably would do more good than harm. After all (as people have suggested), it is just a short walk to neighboring liquor stores, so I don't imagine one more store will really increase demand or availability.
The community has a right to limit the availability of a resource, which means limiting the number of licenses available for it. Mr. Kohls certainly has an equal "right" to have a liquor license in South Fairbanks -- except that the community (working through the Assembly) has seen fit to limit the number of people it can extend that to. That principle is sound, though I think their application may be flawed.
I agree with Mr. Kohls. A GROCERY store is needed in that area. I disagree with him that he should finance that need by opening another alcohol outlet. If he needs financing, let him go to his financial institution. The Assembly did not say no to the grocery store, they said no to the alcohol.
Fairbanks does not need a city assembly and a borough assembly....In my book it's double dipping and hurting the common folk. GET RID OF THE BOROUGH.....................BY BY Whitaker.
GET RID OF Alcoholic Beverage.....I AM NOT AGREE WITH BUBOY .........U DONT THINKING ABOUT DRUNK DRIVERS AND KILLS UN-DRUNK DRIVER THERE'S NO REASON !!!!! BUBUY IS BIG LOSER PERIOD! I THINK U HAVING DUI IN POLICE RECORD!
buboy - I don't think you realize the impact of what you're proposing.
First, take a careful look at a Fairbanks map and pay close attention to where the city boundaries are. I think you'd be surprised how much of 'Fairbanks' is actually outside the city limits. Eliminate the borough and a lot of businesses, just beyond the city limits, would be free to do as they please. Your only recourse would be to cry to Juneau (or Washington, DC) for help controlling them.
I'm sure the FNSB school board would appreciate dealing solely with the state government in Juneau, without interference from any local government. Perhaps you're thinking the Fairbanks city assembly would assume school board oversight. If so, I think the city of North Pole would take exception to Fairbanks having sole say in how North Pole schools are run. I know the people in Two Rivers would take a very dim view on Fairbanks residents telling us how to run our school.
Split the FSNB school district into three (or more) localized districts? Hmmm ... awful lot of redundancy there. Plus, Two Rivers and other areas would need tens or hundreds of millions in state bonds to build new high schools. After all, we wouldn't want to be sending our students to the Fairbanks or North Pole high schools unless we have a say in how those schools are run.
Merge the North Pole and Fairbanks city governments and expand them to encompass surrounding areas? Isn't that simply recreating what you're saying should be eliminated?
No, the current structure of local governments exist because that's what seems to best serve the combined people of Fairbanks, North Pole, and the surrounding areas. Instead of resorting to simplistic, knee-jerk proposals, let's look at what the problems are and refine the local governments so they'll suit our needs even better.
No, it's the right of the *community* to make decisions they believe support public safety and health that trumps the right of the individual to run a business in any old way he or she sees fit.
Paul you are correct only if the city or borough chooses to zone the business district in question as alcohol free and can provide evidence that these stores are a health hazard or a public safety issue.
They have not done so and they have absolutley no right to pick and choose just who can and cannot have a business that sales alcohol.
Paul lets say you own a store that sales alcohol and it's been very profitable business for you.
Can you please explain why I should be denied the right to open a store next to yours which may make my property profitable as well?
First, I have to admit that I don't know what the law is regarding liquor-sale licenses. I'm pretty sure that the actual denial is up to the ABC Board, and that the City and the Borough merely make recommendations, though I don't know what laws guide the ABC Board.
It seems to me that local government has a right to say, "We think this is a bad idea because it will cause more drunkenness (and the resulting social harms) in the already-troubled area where it is proposed." And it also seems to me that they have no obligation to zone a block or a neighborhood liquor-license-free *before* making that recommendation. That would require an unreasonable level of foresight -- not to mention a large bureaucracy to monitor our neighborhoods and find out which are likely to have an alcohol problem.
This kind of decision just strikes me as one of those where our civic leaders *should* have latitude to make decisions without regulation, zoning, ordinance, or statute already in place. There is just no way to keep the laws current and detailed enough to provide a law-based reason for every decision, so there are things where we have to rely on qualities like "judgment".
In this case, I don't think they recommended *who* could or couldn't have a business -- that is, it wasn't about the person -- but they recommended that nobody (in this case, Patrick Kohls) could sell alcohol at that location, the location being (supposedly) saturated with liquor stores already. It's not about who, it's about what's allowed where.
This doesn't mean that I agree with the judgment; in fact, it sounds to me like bad reasoning. But I think the Assembly has a right to make that kind of judgment.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.