It is always somewhat shocking for a Republican such as Representative Gage Froerer (R – Huntsville, District 8) to come out with a liquor law that is actually somewhat progressive and addresses the demands of the community. Furthermore, it is a pleasant surprise when a legislator, such as he, sees this less as a morality issue, and more like the business issue it really is.

As a brief recap, there are three main types of liquor licences in this state: restaurant (think Olive Garden),  limited service restaurants (Piper Down), and taverns (my local dive, Juniors). The state says that there can only be a certain number of total licences under these three headings, and it is all tied to population.

Well, the problem is that there are exactly two restaurant licences and no limited service licences left in the state, but there are a number of tavern licences just floating around that no one wants, if only because it is very difficult to make a profit just selling beer. Froerer is proposing changing the formulas and opening things up by sacrificing most of the 39 excess tavern licences and splitting them between those seeking restaurant and limited service with HB 42  -Alcoholic Beverage Control Act Retail License Quotas.

This bill will both improve the ability for those wishing to get a drink to do so, while also allowing entrepreneurs to open up businesses. In the mean time, the education will see a tidy little profit from those new businesses paying taxes, and local governments will see an increase in property taxes.

So, a toast to Representative Froerer on prosing a bill that at least starts to fix the problem…though a debate is still looming about changing the population requirement in the first place.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Froerer.

As part of our daily life, we often subscribe to things - magazines, gyms, phone plans, shopping clubs – the list goes on and on. Usually you pay some sort of fee on some sort of regular basis to access these things and you don’t think twice about it. You sign your contract and you don’t think much about it. But most contracts don’t force you to pay until you are dead; no, most are annual and have what is known as automatic renewal clause – a clause that says that, when the contract ends, a new one with the same terms begins.

Most of the time this isn’t a problem, but there is a chance for abuse. Say, for example, you cancel one section of a service, but maintain another. A clumsy or deceitful company could continue to automatically renew your contract without ever telling you. What happens? You get a bill for something you never used, and you are contractually obligated to pay it.

Well HB 194 – Service Contracts Act Amendments is intended to help reduce this problem. You see Representative Johnny Anderson (R – Taylorsville, District 34) wants to require that, when it is time for an automatic renewal of a contract to take place, the company you are working with must send you a letter with big bold letters, pointy arrows, and flashing text to you telling you that this is the case.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a little bit, but the company will have to make it very clear that a renewal is taking place.

I always applaud consumer protection bills, and I give extra kudos for this one because it is coming from a Republican no less. This is a no brainer bill that does not hurt business, and allows people to have fair dealings with companies. If you want to renew, great, if you ignore the warnings…well, that is your own damn fault.

Click Here to Contact Representative Anderson.

I constantly hear those on the Right complain about the freeloaders and moochers who use the system to avoid actually working. Well, to all the commentators out there, let me explain my story in brief in a feeble attempt to break your close-mindedness.

I am:

• White
• Male
• Middle Class
• College Educated
• In debt because of this
• Actively seeking a job that is not in a call center or service industry
• Not qualified to receive unemployment
• An otherwise contributing member of society

Truman said it best: “A recession is when your neighbor looses his job, a depression is when you loose your job.” Well, let there be no doubt, I am in a “depression” as we speak.

I want a job, I want to contribute, and I want the society I have been a part of (and paid into I might add) to help me at this moment. No, I am not a welfare queen or a trust fund kid who does not care – no, I am young, I want to work, and I can’t.

This recession is not about bloated government spending, it is not about socialism penetrating our hospitals, it is not about how our rights have been taken away. No, this recession is about good, honest, hard working people struggling to keep their head above water, and I am thankful that this administration is trying to make changes that allow me to do that.

The role of the government should never be to tell me how to live my life, it should be to give me the tools I need to ensure I make this nation a better place. Frankly, I feel a lot of talking heads and politicians have lost sight of this.

It is rare for me to utter the phrase “whoa, this is huge” when reading legislation for the bills to watch series.  Usually I expect certain things from certain individuals or parties, and then just rant or praise the bill. But HB 223 – Alcoholic Beverage Control Act and Restaurant Licenses as proposed by Representative Gage Froerer (R – Huntsville – District 8) made me take pause and ensure that I was reading the bill correctly, if only to ensure that I eyes were not deceiving me.

This bill, if it were to pass, would eliminate the population requirement for liquor licenses issued to restaurants and open the liquor license process to the free market – allowing any restaurant to receive a license if they are willing to pay the fee.

For those of you who may not know, there is a limited number of restaurant liquor licenses (and bar licenses for that matter) that the liquor commission can give out to restaurants across the state, and this number is tied to the state population.  In fact, only one license can be distributed per 5,200 people if the restaurant wishes to sell liquor (these laws apply to, say, the Olive Garden). The bill goes further, if a restaurant wishes to sell wine, heavy beer, or beer (but not spirits), it too lifts the population requirement of one license per 9,300 people (these laws apply to that local wing joint you may love).

This bill, just by its introduction, shows that a shift is taking place in our state that reflects the reality of alcohol consumption in our state. For years now we have been flirting with the fact that liquor licenses may dry up – and indeed they did in November of last year. This bill recognizes that supply is below demand – and I would wager it has been for the longest time as many business owners have not even tried to get a license, feeling that none were available.

This bill will not encourage more people to drink, but it will encourage the growth of more businesses, both large and small – businesses that will add much need revenue to our coffers and drive entrepreneurial spirit.  Remember, we are not talking about bars here, we are talking about small family owned restaurants and large chains that still have to ensure that 70% of their revenue comes from food sales and who want to set up shop in Utah, but won’t because they can’t get a license.

This is a good bill, though I am uncertain of its passage.  This is one of those bills where you need to tell your legislators how you feel about this issue – and I just hope you have the same feelings I do towards the bill.

Click here to contact Representative Froerer.

As the state is staring down a $1 Billion deficit, some difficult decisions have to be made regarding how we are going to balance our budget while still providing for the needs of the citizens of the state of Utah.

To be sure, cuts are going to have to be made to make sure that the state is fiscally sound, however it is politically unwise for both Republicans and Democrats alike to chop off such a large amount of money from the states spending – we will have to find new sources of revenue to ensure that the state is able to pay its bills.

This is where state liquor laws come in.

State liquor licenses have officially, if you will pardon the pun, dried up in the state. You see, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is only allowed to offer a liquor license per 7,850 people according to state law. Now, when the state was smaller and more Mormon, this was a somewhat reasonable number – balancing the beliefs of the predominate religion with those who choose to drink. Today, however, the states population has changed, and the demand for drinks has officially topped out; supply has outstripped demand.

The state of Utah currently has an estimated 2,736,424 people, equating to 348 liquor licenses. If state law were changed, even slightly to, say, one license per 7,250 people, 377 total (or 29) new licenses would become available over night – or to put it another way, one new liquor license per county. Now, it was touted that the famous Port O’ Call brought in $1.2 million yearly in tax dollars to the state, county, and city. But not every bar is a Port O’ Call – let us suppose that each bar will bring in, on average $50,000 in liquor taxes including licensing fees. Suddenly we have an additional $1,450,000 in our coffers.

Now it is fair to point out that this would only cover some 2 percent of our state deficit, but it is a start. Furthermore, it is one of the better types of taxes to impose – a usage tax – if you don’t drink, you don’t pay the tax, and if you do…well thanks for the extra buck. Mind you, we have not even talked about “raising taxes,” just releasing more licenses so that more alcohol can be sold in the first place to a public that is clearly demanding more access. A penny per gallon increase in beer and hard liquor could further increase funds to the state.

I would also be remiss if I did not point out that this policy would, logically, increase the number of alcohol related legal and medical related incidents in our state. I would argue, however, that there is not a one-to-one relationship to alcohol access and abuse. People prone to alcoholism are probably not going to start drinking simply because a new bar opened up down the street – these people will, most likely, already be abusing alcohol regardless of state rules and mandates. Furthermore the person just starting to drink is not likely to over-indulge at a bar – either they are underage and at a friends house, or they are legal and more aware of the consequences of their actions.

Finally, I would like mention the fact that the free market capitalism is attacked under the current system. The state monopoly on licenses not only prevent free enterprise, but they also stifle economic growth in a very real way…Of course I am sure the Republicans on the hill will consider that if and when they discuss this topic.