Planning for the sale of alcohol

Current concern over binge drinking has given rise to a debate on ways of tackling the problem using the planning and licencing systems. There is a particular concern about density of outlets. Here Linda Hill reviews the international literature on the subject.

Liquor licensing is one means by which communities can control the sale of alcohol and encourage server responsibility and compliance with laws such as the age of purchase. Local planning regulations also allow communities control over appropriate location of alcohol outlets and similar matters.

A liquor licence is a privilege that allows the licensee to sell alcohol when others may not. Compliance with licensing laws is enforced by suspending or cancelling the licence. This is necessarily a reactive approach – a big enough problem has to occur before something can be done about it. In contrast, town planning decisions operate prospectively – that is, planning and zoning rules help shape the future. Effects may not always be immediate, however. Existing outlets may be protected, making past patterns slow to change unless a community has a high turnover of licensed businesses.

Nevertheless, local government policies and planning decisions about numbers and location of on-licensed premises and off-licensed outlets allow communities to take local alcohol related risk into consideration before it becomes local alcohol related harm.

The USA and Canada provide examples of municipal governments using zoning powers to exercise local control over alcohol outlets.

Examples from the USA

In the US, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution allows state legislatures to regulate the sale of alcohol. This is done through liquor licensing systems, although 17 states control sales ‘by the bottle’ through state stores monopolies. Many states have regulations limiting the number of bars or bottle stores in relation to population numbers. A state may delegate its licensing powers to cities or counties. Localities that do not have licensing powers often use their zoning powers to control alcohol sales in their area. Zoning decisions can be slow and complex, and the city needs to show that the proposed ordinance would reduce harm to the community. This is indicated by US research linking alcohol-related harm to the number and density of alcohol outlets in the neighbourhood.

A range of zoning strategies are used. In some states (and in Canadian provinces), a whole city or county can be voted ‘dry’ through a ‘local-option’ election. When Barrow, Alaska voted to do this, assaults and emergency room visits decreased significantly. They increased sharply when the ban was lifted and declined significantly again when it was reinstated. Zoning can be used to prohibit the sale of alcohol in certain areas – usually in residential zones, but has also been used in some downtown areas. California took the lead on this in the mid 1980s. Cities and counties began to use zoning rules and conditional use permits to control the location and operation of alcohol outlets. For example, zoning rules may allow licensed restaurants but not bars or off-licensed sales in an area, or may prescribe the hours during which alcohol may be sold. When zoning changes led to the closure of several alcohol outlets in Union City, California, youth violence decreased significantly in those neighbourhoods.

Zoning is also used to create ‘buffer zones’ between licensed premises and community facilities such as schools or churches. For example, liquor licences are not granted to businesses within 1,000 feet of a park, church, school, day care centre or government building in Tampa, Florida, within 1000 feet of a school or church in Bloomingdale, Indiana and Orlando, Florida, or 300 feet in Minneapolis. In Pasadena, California, the Municipal Code created a rule about outlet density that ‘overlaid’ the city’s existing zones and planning requirements. Any new licensed premises, or any existing outlet that wants to sell spirits as well as beer or wine, must be either 250 feet or 1000 feet from any other licensed business. Notification of the application must be posted on the site, and neighbours within 300 feet must be notified.

Drinking by college students is a particular concern in the US. To reduce the number and concentration of bars and bottle stores near campuses, some communities have introduced new zoning laws, or stricter enforcement of existing building and zoning codes. Others have reduced the number of premises by increasing the cost of alcohol licences.

In many states, zoning restrictions may be used to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, provided a relationship is established between the community problems and the activity restricted.

Disproportionate concentration of alcohol outlets in poorer neighbourhoods has become a concern in many communities. In South Central Los Angeles, residents used conditional use permit requirements to prevent the rebuilding of 200 liquor stores burnt down in the civil unrest of 1992. Requirements included limited hours of operation, security, and lighting and cleanliness outside the premises. When Oakland took a similar approach with currently operating alcohol outlets, the US Court of Appeals confirmed that this was a valid use of city authority that overrode existing land use rights.

In Chicago, Illinois, by 1997, 36 out of 50 wards had changed their zoning rules to place a moratorium on new licensed premises or retail outlets. The moratoriums were brought about by community campaigns, either via a local referendum or via city councillors and a planning ordinance. As well as preventing new liquor licences, “a moratorium sends the message that the community cares enough to take action”, said the researchers who documented these campaigns. Community action included increased monitoring and enforcement of laws and regulations governing outlet management. In Illinois, differential rating for particular areas can be used to fund special services. This has paid for extra late night hours for security staff near licensed premises and for extra street cleaning.

Zoning and similar planning controls were also part of a full evaluated, five-year community action project, that the World Health Organization cites as ‘exemplary’. Community action projects in three middle-sized communities in Northern and Southern California and South Carolina were compared with matched communities which did not have projects. Each locality organised its own programme of action. These included mobilising the community, media coverage, server training, initiatives to reduce off-licence sales to minors, enforcement of drinkdriving laws. All three communities made alcohol access and availability a priority for action. Zoning and other local government powers were used to address the number, density and management of alcohol outlets. Community members knew about problems with local alcohol outlets and drew on scientific evidence about the relationship between alcohol availability and alcohol problems. They found that local planning, zoning, licensing and enforcement tools were available to address these problems, even if they had not been used in the past. These included reviewing consents decisions, making alcohol sales a conditional land use so as to allow case-by-case control, developing a model Conditional Use Permit that included the restrictions set by the council, limiting areas of permitted location and creating buffer zones. All thre communities met set-backs or easing of regulations for downtown areas, however, as some business and political interests supported rapid outlet growth as part of local economic development.

Examples from Canada

In Canada, alcohol laws are made by the provincial government, but city councils are increasingly using their planning powers to exercise local control. As in some US states, provincial laws often restrict alcohol availability through a provincial government monopoly over takeaway alcohol outlets. These have come under political pressures for privatisation, including challenges under free trade treaties.

In 1993 the Alberta provincial government privatised its liquor stores and the number of outlets almost doubled. The monopoly had kept prices high but over the next year per capita consumption increased in Alberta, compared with decreases in the rest of Canada. The City of Edmonton was concerned that new outlets would create and concentrate problems in certain parts of the city. Licensing and hours of operation were the responsibility of the Provincial government, and it was likely that it would consider local use of zoning ordinances to control density directly to be a restriction on competition. Edmonton’s response was to define two new and uses by size of outlet – major and minor alcohol sales –distributed through most commercial zones. There were also new rules to separate liquor stores from schools and other public facilities. On-licensed premises were also restricted by size and number of seats. More recently, changes in alcohol regulations, reduced monitoring by the Alberta licensing authority and poorly operated premises led to growing concern in some neighbourhoods. A larger number of more precise land use classes was adopted, together with new rules on permitted and discretionary uses, covering such things as outdoor patios and sound systems. This allowed greater flexibility on how different kinds of premises or retail outlets were distributed in five different commercial zones and provided a sounder base for regulating land use and local impacts.

Ottawa has revitalised its inner city on a ‘festival marketplace’ model. This resulted in increased nuisance from licensed premises and from public drinking. Youth parties were being organised and held in private car parks. This was addressed with a zoning rule that prevented ‘public assembly with commercial intent’. City officials also held cross-sectoral negotiations with the parking lot operators, adjacent bar owners, police and the Provincial licensing authority with its power to withdraw liquor licences. They also addressed community concerns about public safety and inner city residential amenity with a bylaw controlling the location of large bars and placing a moratorium on new bars over 500m2 in size.

References

Ashe, M., D. Jernigan, R. Kline, R.
Galaz (2003) Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and fast food restaurants. American Journal of Public Health 93(9): 1404- 08; see also the Center for Health Information’s Health Policy Guide on conditional use permits and zoning and other ordinances http://www.healthpolicycoach.org/

Parker, R. Nash and R.S. Cartmill
(1998) Alcohol and homicide in the US: Or one reason why US rates of violence may be going down. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 88(4): 1369-1398. Higher Education Center (sighted 21.7.2004) Curtailing alcohol outlet density is key factor in college alcohol prevention. March. www.edc.org/hec/

Maxwell, A. and D. Immergluck
(1997) Liquorlining: Liquor store concentration and community development in lower-income Cook County neighborhoods. Woodstock Institute, Chicago. Addiction Special Issue 1997;

Reynolds, R.I., H.D. Holder and P.J. Gruenewald
(1997) Community prevention and alcohol retail access. Addiction 92: S261-S269.

Gruenewald, P.J., A.B. Millar and P. Roeper
(1996) Access to alcohol. Alcohol Health and Research World 20(4): 244-251.

Grieshaber-Otto, J., S. Sinclair and N.Schacter
(2000) Impacts of international trade, services and investment treaties on alcohol regulation. Addiction 95 Supplement 4: S491-504Grieshaber- Otto, Sinclair and Schacter 2000.

Her, M., N. Giesbrecht et al.
(1999)Privatizing alcohol sales and alcohol consumption: Evidence and implications. Addiction 94(8): 1125-40. City of Edmonton (2000) City Shaping: Choosing directions for planning and developing Edmonton in the future. A process of bylaw reform, Issues Report. November.

Turnbridge, J.E.
(2001) Ottawa’s Byward Market: A festive bone of contention? Canadian Geographer 45(3): 356-370