Alcohol sales are not an alternative

By Staff
Walter Blackman, Guest Columnist
The discussion of looking to alcohol sales as a means of revenue for the city school system and /or the city in general is sure to arise again since the voters have said no to a tax hike for a new Hartselle High School building. It has been mentioned in many e-sound off discussions and the Decatur Daily’s article about the tax hike rejection mentioned it as a “tax alternative.” Therefore, let me revisit some important statistical data we (those opposed to Hartselle going wet) discovered doing some simple research.
First, revenue from liquor at State ABC stores generates very little income for the community. In 2001, the Alabama ABC Board reported Decatur receiving $25,517. This is for a city of 53,707 compared to Hartselle’s population of about 13,000. Why is this such a low number? It is because Morgan County is a dry county. All the revenue from the sale of alcohol, other than beer, is redistributed among the wet counties of Alabama and their municipalities. In other words, Hartselle money for alcohol would benefit the wet counties far more than our city or our dry county. This is why Decatur was forced to raise the sales taxes to 9 percent after going wet – not to mention the added cost of enlarging their police department to deal with additional DUIs and higher crime rate.
The alcohol revenue for the city primarily comes from the sale of beer, which, in 2005, was about 5-cents per can. This would require about 750,000 cans of beer to be sold to fund just one teacher’s salary ($38,750) - nothing approximating the millions needed for a new school.
The only ones who would profit from the sale of 775,000 cans of beer would be the seller, who would make around $132,000 or the manufacturer/distributor who would make around $433,800 (2002 rates).
In fact, if you look at other comparable cities who receive ABC revenue, it tells the story of what Hartselle could expect: Scottsboro, $5,520; Gunterville, $7,052; Enterprise, $4,404; Florence, $5,861; and Clanton, $1,846. These cities are comparable in size to Hartselle. The only other revenue would be the slight amount of money coming back to Hartselle in the form of sales tax but that amount would be even more negligible.
Secondly, for every $1 collected in taxes, it would cost our community $15.73 in alcohol related expense to repair the damage (police, counselors, firemen, worker absentee, litter, property damage, etc.) This would not even begin to take into account the cost of precious lives - particularly the lives of our youth and loved ones who would be victims of alcohol related accidents and crimes. Speaking of crime, in 2002, wet Jasper was about 70 percent above the national average in property theft rates and Decatur was about 50 percent above the national average. Hartselle was 28 percent below the national average.
In violent crimes, wet Jasper was 70 percent higher than the national average and wet Decatur exceeded violent crime rate of Hartselle in 2002 by over 1000 percent.
Our city was 89 percent below the national average in violent crimes in 2002 because we are a safe community, free from the effects of clubs, lounges and easy access to alcohol.
Thirdly, remaining dry is the only way our community retains control over what comes in or out of our community. When a town or city goes wet, they must allow the ABC stores to come in and they, not the city, will determine the location of their stores. All final decisions for the control of alcohol sales belongs to the three person ABC board in Montgomery. Hartselle will likely be like Decatur, who said there would be no clubs or lounges, only to have them emerge, who said there would be no alcohol in their parks, when today it is sold there. We would face the same issue of alcohol sales on Sunday, the location of alcohol near schools, hospitals, churches and day cares because our city does not have a reasonable ordinance in place.
A previous city council treated an attempt by local ministers and concerned citizen to request such an ordinance with virtual contempt. This no doubt contributed to the defeat of the alcohol referendum, since Hartselle was wide-open to the location of where alcohol sales would occur.
Looking to alcohol sales for the funding of a new Hartselle High School would not be a bonanza, but a boondoggle.
Our city has been down this road before, and then people spoke out even louder (nearly two to one) against alcohol being sold in Hartselle than about paying higher property taxes in 2002.
Let us not return to a divisive and expensive “alternative” in search of funding for new facilities for our kids, but let the city council, the school board, and the concerned citizens of Hartselle become partners in looking for the right approach to fund what is needed for meeting the educational needs of our children.