Tying the Cities’ Hands

The concurrent sale of alcoholic beverages with gasoline at combination convenience stores and service stations has raised serious questions about the authority of local communities to control the practice.

Proprietors of the concurrent-sales stores waged an unsuccessful effort last year to deny local government any authority over licensing the stores. That mischievous approach stirred, as it should have, strong opposition from the state’s cities. There is growing recognition that local authorities are far better qualified than distant beverage controllers to decide where and whether off-sale alcoholic-beverage establishments should be set up.

This year the industry has come back with a compromise proposal that is at least an improvement. Under provisions of AB 937, introduced by Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres), local governments could have the last word through the issuance of conditional-use permits, on the model of the Los Angeles regulations. But cities would be prohibited from establishing total bans on the concurrent-sale operations, as Glendale has done.

The principle of this bill has been approved by directors of the League of California Cities. It is defended as equitable because it would provide what the industry calls a level playing field, with the same rules applying everywhere. As an incentive, the industry has offered to drop its court challenges to existing categorical-ban ordinances if this piece of legislation is approved and signed by the governor.

That has not satisfied the leaders of cities that want to facilitate control of this practice through categorical bans. We share their concern. If local control is to be respected, as it should be, the form of control should be at the discretion of the cities. Condit has agreed to meet with representatives of those cities before he moves ahead with his bill. So he should. Unless they can be satisfied, the argument that he is empowering local government will not ring true.