Liquor Sellers Urge End to Local Laws Limiting Sales : Alcohol: A representative for retailers tells an Assembly committee that they want the state alone to regulate the industry. Opponents say cities need to retain control for the good of communities.

Liquor retailers Wednesday urged an Assembly committee to prevent local governments from restricting the operation of liquor stores and instead make policing of the outlets purely a state responsibility.

A representative of the 40,000-member California Beverage Retailers Assn. complained that some local restrictive ordinances are keeping big grocery chains out of inner cities and driving small stores out of business.

“We supply the food and beverages that the families of California eat and drink every day,” attorney John Hinman told the Assembly Government Organization Committee. “Why do we sell wine, beer and spirits? Because our customers demand these products and won’t shop in our stores if we don’t carry them.

“Licensed (alcoholic) beverages are legal products and the citizens of this state have a legal right to buy them,” he said.

The coalition wants the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, which by law oversees the licensing of liquor retailers, to provide uniform statewide regulatory enforcement that would preempt more restrictive local measures.

As it is, some local jurisdictions have imposed greater restrictions in order to fight crime and other alcohol-related problems.

Local government representatives testified that they should be allowed to continue imposing additional restrictions as they see fit to address a variety of problems.

The city of Oakland recently enacted an ordinance levying a $600 annual fee on liquor store owners to pay for city staff to police the stores. Inspectors work with owners to cut down on illegal drug sales, public drunkenness, harassment of pedestrians, prostitution, public urination, gambling and loitering.

If affected liquor stores do not cooperate with the police and city officials in this effort, the city can revoke their land-use permits to put them out of business. A court test of the controversial ordinance is expected soon.

“This program is designed to build a stronger community,” said Oakland City Councilman Nate Miley. “It is not a program to penalize liquor store operators. . . . We want them to become good neighbors.”

Oakland Deputy Police Chief Bob Nichelini testified that the city has roughly the same number of police that it had 33 years ago, but 10 times the number of complaint calls.

“We are literally pushed to the wall,” said Nichelini. This prompted Assemblyman Paul V. Horcher (R-Diamond Bar) to comment: “Why don’t you just hire more cops and less bureaucrats?”

Another supporter of the Oakland ordinance, Elva Yanez of the Coalition on Alcohol Outlet Issues, told the committee: “Mothers don’t feel safe sending their children to the corner grocery store.”

Hinman said the coalition of liquor interests would agree to state agency-enforced regulations to require posting of “no drinking” and “no loitering” signs on licensed premises. They would also consent to upgrade outside lighting, to remove litter and graffiti, to limit the use of telephones in areas known to be frequented by drug dealers, and to remove video machines to discourage loitering.

“All we need now,” he added, “is a clear declaration from the Legislature that it will not allow California’s system of statewide licensed beverage regulations to be undermined by national anti-alcohol organizations who are preying upon the fear of local communities in order to achieve their social engineering and local control agenda.”

Assemblyman Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood), the committee chairman, indicated that legislation related to liquor retailer regulation probably will come up for action during the 1994 session, which starts Jan. 3.

“Preemption of local control in this area will be vehemently opposed by the League of California Cities,” said David Jones, a representative of that group.