Spokane7
48°
April 7, 2010 in City
Cheap beer, wine sales banned downtown starting May 15
Boundaries of the area in which 32 low-cost, high-alcohol content beers and wines will no longer be sold for off-premises use.
(Full-size photo)
Thirty-two low-cost, high-alcohol beers and wines can no longer be sold in downtown Spokane beginning May 15.
The state Liquor Control Board Wednesday approved a Spokane city request to establish an alcohol impact area along a broad section of downtown.
Liquor licensees and the area’s single liquor store will be prevented from selling cheap high-octane products for off-premise consumption.
The action comes after adoption of an ordinance by the Spokane City Council last December creating the impact zone and seeking liquor board approval.
The City Council at the time said that only seven of 32 licensees in the zone had complied with voluntary efforts to not sell fortified beer and wine with greater than 5.5 percent alcohol.
Mayor Mary Verner said Wednesday that action will boost to the city’s core.
“We had some success at the beginning, but gradually the participation became less consistent and we had some who just flagrantly refused to participate,” she said. “Having the sales of those fortified ales and beers in the large containers was a huge detriment to multiple efforts that we have going on downtown.”
The restricted area spans from Cannon Street in Browne’s Addition to Scott Street in east Spokane. The north boundary is Spokane Falls Boulevard; the south edge along Fifth Avenue.
Alan Rathbun, director of licensing and regulation for the board, said that the problem in Spokane was similar to a recent experience in Tacoma’s Lincoln District, where an impact zone has resulted in a strengthening of neighborhood bonds.
He said banning the cheap, higher-alcohol products to “chronic public inebriants” might result in a greater sense of safety for the wider public, and that may actually benefit the restricted merchants by bringing more business to the downtown area.
“I do see there is a real community effort there” to solve the problem, Rathbun said.
Victor Delgado, who works at the Divine’s Mid City convenience store at Second Avenue and Lincoln Street, said the ban could be a benefit to store owners by reducing public intoxication.
Delgado’s only concern is that those seeking the high-alcohol products could become aggressive with employees.
“Sometimes people don’t adapt to something right away, and they get aggressive,” Delgado said. “But it could be a good thing; we’ll have wait and see.”
The city’s petition said that police and fire paramedic calls for alcohol intoxication, as well as calls for ambulance or detoxification services, have increased each year since 2003. In addition, the problem spills over to emergency room visits.
Property crimes, including theft, and panhandling by transients are also seen as associated with the alcohol sales to transients or street people.
Local hospitals reported that the cost of treating alcohol poisoning cases was $2.2 million in 2008 with $1 million of that amount not being paid by indigent patients.
Jonathan Brunt and Sara Leaming contributed to this report.
Returning farmland to a state of nature 
Scoutster on April 07 at 3:03 p.m.
When Olde English 8000 is outlawed, only outlaws will drink Olde English 8000.
Politico on April 07 at 3:34 p.m.
Just politicians wanting something to point at and say “look what good thing we did” even though it’s not going to change anything. These “cheap” beers you banned are about 50 cents cheaper then the imports with the same alcohol content that are still allowed. If anything you just created more agressive panhandlers.
misjustice on April 07 at 3:36 p.m.
Will Work 4 Beer?
Another_Perspective on April 07 at 3:53 p.m.
If they banned hallucinogenic drugs from the same area, they would have to move city hall.
I like how Cannon street was arbitrarily picked. The nearest store is 6 blocks east at Rosauers.
So does this means the taverns are going to have to comply too?
When will Big Brother learn that Big Brother is Big Brother?
too bad they didnt ban IED’s either.
bdr on April 07 at 4:00 p.m.
Olde English 8000? outlawed…….Oh well I guess they’ll go back to heroin or weed.
misjustice on April 07 at 4:01 p.m.
No, anotherperspective, the article sites “off-premise consumption”, meaning that taverns, restaurants, etc… are exempt because customers drink the products on the premise.
Scoutster on April 07 at 4:50 p.m.
This is an excellent example of flawed public policy. Read the rationale for this carefully..is the purpose
to “strengthen community bonds”
to reduce panhandling
to reduce crime
to reduce hospitalizations/EMS calls?
All of these things, as well as motherhood and apple pie, sound good. But you will note there is not a shred of empirical evidence to demonstrate that actually DOING this (outlawing fortified wines and beers) is correlated to these desirable outcomes.
To believe this, you would have to believe that public inebriates stop ingesting these products when the ban goes into force. What other communities have found is what common sense will tell you…they don’t stop drinking it, they move the problem to another neighborhood. Duh.
But, people can feel better.
It’s what Colbert calls “truthiness”.
spokanada on April 07 at 6:05 p.m.
sounds like they are just moving the problem out of downtown. I guess the police, fire, and ambulance services will just have to spend more money on gas fighting the problems now that they are away from downtown.
flutieflakes on April 07 at 7:11 p.m.
Opening a convenience store across the street from this area seems like a better investment after reading this.
Dazzeetrader11 on April 07 at 7:32 p.m.
Surprised they didn’t make the espoused reasons for this ban a. better biking, b. walking and, of course,…c.the trees……
Sauce on April 07 at 9:24 p.m.
Near nature. Near ludicrous.
JBlim on April 07 at 10:13 p.m.
Buddy, can you spare $5 for a micro-brew?