Posted 8:35 pm Sunday, April 26, 2009
No Real Need Shown To OK Alcohol Sales
Precinct 4 and Winona alcohol sales
In any debate, the burden of proof is on the side wanting change.
That rule applies to the question of alcohol sales in Smith County Justice Precinct 4 and within the city of Winona.
And the advocates of alcohol sales -- the "wets" in this wet-dry election -- have not made a compelling case why a portion of Smith County should go against longstanding tradition.
Do Smith County residents purchase alcohol? Sure. And they do so in neighboring counties -- which means it's true we are missing out on some sales tax revenue.
But this isn't just about the revenue.
Smith County is unique, as the "drys" rightly contend. It limits the sale of alcohol, and yet it continues to attract new businesses and new residents at a pace that exceeds the state as a whole.
Smith County is unique, as the "drys" rightly contend. It limits the sale of alcohol, and yet it continues to attract new businesses and new residents at a pace that exceeds the state as a whole.
We simply don't need package stores and beer barns in Smith County. Just as with the gambling debate, there are better ways to fund local government needs.
Another argument proponents of alcohol sales raise is convenience. Yet they undermine their own position. On one hand, they say alcohol sales within the county boundaries won't increase alcohol consumption, because it's so easy and convenient to obtain anyway -- "just minutes away," as one said. And on the other hand, they claim Smith County residents want and deserve easier access.
A troubling aspect of this election is its ultra-localized nature. Certainly, state law allows alcohol elections in political subdivisions such as cities and county precincts.
But the costs and benefits of alcohol sales will just as certainly be borne by the county as a whole. The county coffers aren't divided into justice precinct accounts. The county's budget would have to bear the increased costs of patrols, and predictably, additional arrests. And revenue from the sales tax -- estimated at $5,000 for $1 million in alcohol sales -- will go into the general fund. This question, therefore, should be put to the county as a whole.
Voters in Justice Precinct 4 and Winona should vote "against" Propositions 1 and 2 on May 9.
Tyler City Council District 1
Sam Mezayek is the clear choice in the Tyler City Council District 1 race. His long history of service to his community -- from leading Cub Scouts to serving as a board member for the Boys and Girls Club to serving on the thankless but important Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals -- shows his heart and his time have been given freely to make Tyler a better place.
Mezayek's opponent for the open seat (current council member Steve Smith is prevented by term limits from running again) is Nate Lambert, an energetic young man who doubtless has many years of public service ahead of him. The city should seek to channel Lambert's abilities and enthusiasm in coming years as he seeks to better his community.
But in the May 9 election, Mezayek, a local home builder, has earned the endorsement of the Tyler newspaper.
Tyler City Council District 5
Incumbent Nathaniel Moran deserves a third term as member of the Tyler City Council for District 5. Throughout his first two terms, Moran has shown himself a diligent and conscientious council member, widely known for doing his homework on issues. He has shown a consistent streak of fiscal conservatism, yet he knows Tyler has needs that must be met.
Moran faces challenger Keith Pyron in the May 9 election. District 5 voters should keep the fine representative they have in Moran.
