Liquor Rule Changes Needed Public Input

Ten years ago, the Washington state Liquor Control Board went all the way to the state Supreme Court to defend - successfully - the way it regulated the sale of hard liquor. It was requiring restaurants that sold hard liquor to prove that a certain minimum percentage of their revenues came from food sales. This requirement, the board insisted, wasn’t arbitrary or capricious.

Now, though, the board has decided it just isn’t practical.

Last summer, the board lifted its requirement that at least 30 percent of an establishment’s gross revenues had to come from food sales if the business wanted to sell spirits. Before that, based on a 1948 law, only restaurants could sell hard liquor by the glass; taverns could sell only beer and wine.

The change, while little-noticed by customers, already has meant 100 more Class H licenses for restaurants across the state that might not have qualified previously to sell hard liquor. The rule change also will increase the availability of spirits at neighborhood taverns.

So, who’s to say that’s all bad? Critics include the obvious - Mothers Against Drunk Driving, law enforcement, some legislators - but also some unlikely ones such as the Restaurant Association of Washington and the Spokane Restaurant Association.

The concerns are legitimate. By dropping the 30 percent requirement, the board may have effectively changed the culture of drinking in Washington state. Communities may see more nightclubs that exist primarily to sell liquor. And the atmosphere at corner pubs could change from casual beer gatherings to more serious drinking.

All this at a time when police, courts and awareness groups are starting to make a dent in drunken driving.

Of course, there still are safeguards. The Liquor Control Board requires that establishments with liquor licenses have cooking facilities and offer a full-service menu of at least five entrees for at least five hours a day. They also must have a limited menu available any time liquor is served.

But the change still rankles. It doesn’t seem right that the liquor board unilaterally could change the rules simply to cut down on paperwork. Sure, it asked for public input as it considered the change over 12-plus months, but what average citizens take note of a liquor board meeting unless they know exactly how the board’s deliberations could affect them?

Almost 50 years of precedent have been swept away by a nonelected board. Washington legislators - or voters - have a right to say how easily they want alcohol to be available in this state. Washington residents should have been in on this decision.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Anne Windishar/For the editorial board