It is disappointing that after many months of detailed discussion about a Wal-Mart Supercenter for Monroe, the matter of creating a new liquor license has come up after the project received the city government's blessing.
The question should have been raised earlier. The City of Monroe should treat Wal-Mart's case no differently than it would any other request to increase the quota on the number of licenses. It also must tread extremely carefully, for multiple reasons.
In a letter dated March 27, Casie Perkins, the licensing compliance coordinator for Wal-Mart stores, asked the city to grant the yet-to-be-built superstore a "Class A Fermented Malt Beverage and Liquor License." But a supervisor in the company's Bentonville, Ark., licensing compliance office said the company is seeking the other type of Class A license which would allow it to sell hard liquor and wine in addition to beer. Vicki Sinclair said Wal-Mart would settle if it must for the license that only allows for beer sales.
Monroe Wal-Mart Manager Ron Fager last week told the Times his intention is to only sell beer and wine at the new store.
The problem is that the quota for both types of Class A licenses - which is set by city government - already has been reached. A new quota would have to be set to accommodate Wal-Mart.
With its request, Wal-Mart has put the city in a difficult situation, one that merits more than a knee-jerk reaction and has no easy answer.
City leaders must consider what the nature of this request is from Wal-Mart. Is it being made at this stage of the process because the company believes it has leverage now that the project has been approved by the city? If that's the case, should the city allow Wal-Mart to influence the important discussion of liquor license quotas in such a way?
Is Wal-Mart looking at this license request as a deal maker or breaker? Hopefully not, and it wouldn't seem to make much economic sense for the company to take that kind of a stance. But city officials also must consider whether rejecting a liquor license request puts the entire project in jeopardy. Supercenters do not come without their negative impacts, but the project's overall effect on Monroe and Green County will be positive. It would be terrible for the city to lose out over a liquor license dispute.
City leaders also must consider the merits of additional Class A licenses. The Monroe City Council last year accommodated a request from Monroe Main Street to create more liquor licenses for restaurants and bars. The council did so by creating new types of Class B and Class C licenses, and did so with the support of this newspaper.
That raises the question - if the city was right to accommodate potential business growth by creating new Class B and C licenses, wouldn't it also be prudent to create more Class A licenses that could be purchased by new businesses? It's a debate the council must have.
The argument could be made that the ability to sell beer or wine is more important to a restaurant than it is to a big box store like Wal-Mart. Should city leaders make that distinction in debating the merits of additional Class A licenses?
A major difference between the two liquor license issues is that in this case there is a specific business making a request where before it was a philosophical debate. And, let's face it, Wal-Mart isn't just any business. Clearly, the debate over the number of Class A licenses would be better had if there wasn't Wal-Mart or any other business tied directly to it.
But Wal-Mart has forced city leaders in an unenviable position. The debate can't be avoided. City government must be very careful in how it handles this matter. Hopefully, the proper course will become clearer as discussion advances.
The question should have been raised earlier. The City of Monroe should treat Wal-Mart's case no differently than it would any other request to increase the quota on the number of licenses. It also must tread extremely carefully, for multiple reasons.
In a letter dated March 27, Casie Perkins, the licensing compliance coordinator for Wal-Mart stores, asked the city to grant the yet-to-be-built superstore a "Class A Fermented Malt Beverage and Liquor License." But a supervisor in the company's Bentonville, Ark., licensing compliance office said the company is seeking the other type of Class A license which would allow it to sell hard liquor and wine in addition to beer. Vicki Sinclair said Wal-Mart would settle if it must for the license that only allows for beer sales.
Monroe Wal-Mart Manager Ron Fager last week told the Times his intention is to only sell beer and wine at the new store.
The problem is that the quota for both types of Class A licenses - which is set by city government - already has been reached. A new quota would have to be set to accommodate Wal-Mart.
With its request, Wal-Mart has put the city in a difficult situation, one that merits more than a knee-jerk reaction and has no easy answer.
City leaders must consider what the nature of this request is from Wal-Mart. Is it being made at this stage of the process because the company believes it has leverage now that the project has been approved by the city? If that's the case, should the city allow Wal-Mart to influence the important discussion of liquor license quotas in such a way?
Is Wal-Mart looking at this license request as a deal maker or breaker? Hopefully not, and it wouldn't seem to make much economic sense for the company to take that kind of a stance. But city officials also must consider whether rejecting a liquor license request puts the entire project in jeopardy. Supercenters do not come without their negative impacts, but the project's overall effect on Monroe and Green County will be positive. It would be terrible for the city to lose out over a liquor license dispute.
City leaders also must consider the merits of additional Class A licenses. The Monroe City Council last year accommodated a request from Monroe Main Street to create more liquor licenses for restaurants and bars. The council did so by creating new types of Class B and Class C licenses, and did so with the support of this newspaper.
That raises the question - if the city was right to accommodate potential business growth by creating new Class B and C licenses, wouldn't it also be prudent to create more Class A licenses that could be purchased by new businesses? It's a debate the council must have.
The argument could be made that the ability to sell beer or wine is more important to a restaurant than it is to a big box store like Wal-Mart. Should city leaders make that distinction in debating the merits of additional Class A licenses?
A major difference between the two liquor license issues is that in this case there is a specific business making a request where before it was a philosophical debate. And, let's face it, Wal-Mart isn't just any business. Clearly, the debate over the number of Class A licenses would be better had if there wasn't Wal-Mart or any other business tied directly to it.
But Wal-Mart has forced city leaders in an unenviable position. The debate can't be avoided. City government must be very careful in how it handles this matter. Hopefully, the proper course will become clearer as discussion advances.
