<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Woodland rejects resolution opposing liquor initiatives

By Marissa Harshman, Columbian Health Reporter
Published: October 20, 2010, 12:00am

The Woodland City Council on Monday night rejected a resolution opposing two state liquor initiatives.

Councilman Al Swindell proposed the resolution voicing opposition to state Initiatives 1100 and 1105, which would privatize liquor sales. The council voted 6-1 to reject the resolution; Swindell was the only vote in favor.

In voting against the resolution, most of the council members said they didn’t think the city should take a stand on a state issue, City Clerk Mari Ripp said.

The explanation didn’t add -up for Swindell.

In June, three council members voted in favor of a city resolution supporting Arizona’s controversial immigration law and encouraging the Washington Legislature to adopt a similar law. The resolution failed 4-3.

“The Arizona law was something that really didn’t involve our state,” said Swindell, who voted against that resolution. “But this really involves our city and our state and the county. So I don’t understand that line of reasoning.”

Initiative 1100 would privatize liquor sales, allowing any business to distribute liquor for a fee. If the initiative passes, retailers could buy liquor directly from the manufacturers. Initiative 1105 would also privatize liquor sales, but would keep a three-tier system for distribution: Manufacturers sell to distributors, who in turn sell to retailers.

If either initiative passes, the city stands to lose revenue. Cities, counties and the state receive two types of revenue from the sale of liquor: Washington State Liquor Control Board profit distributions and liquor excise taxes. The city of Woodland receives about $60,000 a year from board profits and excise taxes.

Both initiatives would eliminate the revenue cities get from liquor board profits. In addition, if passed, I-1105 would eliminate the liquor excise tax as of April 1, 2012.

Councilman Benjamin Fredricks proposed the June immigration resolution. He contends illegal immigration costs the city, county and state. But, Fredricks said, when he tried to make a symbolic gesture supporting the law, a majority of council members said the city should not be involved in state and federal issues.

That’s part of the reason why Fredricks voted against the resolution opposing the state liquor initiatives. In addition, Fredricks said he supports I-1100, calling the current system archaic.

“The state needs to get out of the business of selling liquor and needs to get into the business of public safety by enforcing liquor laws,” he said.

If I-1100 passes, Fredricks suspects the state Legislature would redirect some of the funds to the cities when the state realizes the savings from not operating the stores. He also anticipates liquor sales would increase because the cost of a bottle would go down.

Swindell’s primary reason for asking the council to approve the resolution is to protect children. Swindell worries if liquor is available at more locations and during the later hours, underage drinking will increase, alcoholism will become more prevalent and more drunken drivers will be on the roads.

Marissa Harshman: 360-735-4546 or marissa.harshman@columbian.com.

Loading...
Columbian Health Reporter