Restricting sales is the wrong approach

Hearing about Arlington Heights' proposed ban on small-package liquor sales prompted a search of the closest liquor cabinet.

There were six different microbrew bottles assembled as a gift. A 200 ml bottle of the peppermint schnapps required for a recipe. A 375 ml bottle of dark rum used only for holiday eggnog.

None could be purchased in Arlington Heights, if village officials follow through with a proposal meant to curb drunken loiterers downtown.

The proposed ordinance would outlaw the sale of a single container of beer unless it is 40 ounces or more; a single container of wine unless it is greater than 12 ounces, which is considered half a bottle; and a single bottle of liquor other than beer or wine unless it is greater than 16 ounces (that's 473 ml).

Journeys From PADS to Hope, a Palatine agency that works with homeless people, supports the restrictions as a way to help people conquer alcohol addictions by eliminating access to cheaper, more easily portable containers of liquor. Police see it as bolstering their efforts, which also include placing warning signs and enforcing prohibitions on alcohol in the downtown parking garage, parks and Arlington Park Metra station.

Local retailers hate the idea, saying small packages are a big part of business. Those sales help them compete with large retailers and stores with lower taxes across the border in Lake County.

Both sides have strong points.

But we hate to put the onus on local retailers in these economic times, when any restriction on sales can push stores closer to shutting down, with resulting losses to the village's revenue.

We urge village officials to closely examine whether other enforcement efforts could be put in place to deal with people breaking laws without hurting those trying to make a living. If they conclude restricting liquor sales is inescapable, a more specific and targeted proposal should be drafted. Some suggestions include only restricting small-package sales of specific types of products found to contribute disproportionally to the public drinking problem. Or the village could restrict single-bottle sales of refrigerated products, as Mount Prospect has done. Another option is a law with an expiration date and procedures for tracking whether instances of public drunkenness decline. If the law does not reduce the numbers after a trial period, let it expire.

Village officials, to their credit, met with representatives of some liquor stores, and we hope they continue working together as the Oct. 12 vote approaches. Conversations with leaders in Elgin and Evanston, which ban small-package liquor sales, should help quantify the benefits to those towns and the losses for their retailers.

Under the proposed ban, law-abiding residents no doubt would continue to buy small quantities of liquor elsewhere and bring them back to Arlington Heights. The big question is whether the violators in question would do the same.