The Badger Herald

NEWS

City’s number of liquor licenses decreases to 6

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Aubre Andrus:

UW prepares for Halloween (October 20, 2005)
City prepares for Halloween (October 20, 2005)
In-Depth: State Street's balancing act (September 1, 2005)
In-Depth: Destination: class (November 3, 2005)

by Aubre Andrus

Monday, January 17, 2005

The city of Madison, which usually distributes between 25 and 30 liquor licenses per year, has only six remaining Class B-combination liquor and beer licenses to distribute, for which seven businesses have already applied.

The Tavern League of Wisconsin initiated the quota in 1997, according to Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4. Verveer, who also serves as a member on the Alcohol License Review Committee, the group responsible for reviewing all applicants for liquor licenses, said the committee does not know how it will distribute the remaining licenses.

“Many potential combination liquor license applicants have already approached me and are worried,” Verveer said. “It’s not the city’s making, and no one is happy with the position we find ourselves in with the quotas.”

Ald. Judy Olsen, District 6, also a member of the ALRC, said it will take some time before the committee knows the best way to deal with the quota.

“I think the only thing the ALRC can do is to develop a thoughtful plan for how to distribute licenses in the future,” Olsen said. “The first thing we will do is establish a policy or statement that says we’ll be giving licenses on a first-come first-serve basis until we have some set of criteria to rely upon.”

The population of the city determines the quota of liquor licenses. Madison’s population will be reevaluated this fall, Verveer said. Madison is expected to receive fewer than 10 new combination licenses, he added.

A Class B-combination liquor and beer license allows restaurants and bars to have a full bar, including hard alcohol. A beer and wine license, which is not subject to the quota, is a cheaper alternative for businesses that may not be able to receive a combination liquor license, Verveer said.

According to Verveer, once all of the combination liquor licenses are distributed, the only way a business would be able to offer a full bar would be to buy an establishment that already owns a combination liquor and beer license, clarifying that the licenses are tied to the addresses of the businesses.

Verveer said he does not believe all businesses will be hurt. Some restaurants only have enough room for a cooler of beer or offer a menu with which most customers typically only drink beer or wine. These restaurants, he added, do not need a full liquor license.

Other businesses, such as steakhouses, may be affected because patrons are more willing to drink hard alcohol with their dinners.

Kami Eshraghi, owner of the Kimia Lounge, said he does not understand why people are surprised about the lack of licenses.

“It’s like getting your student loans and spending them in the first month and you’re broke,” Eshraghi said.

Eshraghi, who will also be running for City Council this year, said he believes the licenses were given out too freely over the years and now future businesses are dealing with the effects.

According to Eshraghi, restaurants with seating for 300 or more people are not included in the quota and can still open after all the licenses are given out.

“[This limits] the ability of local small-business people … to be part of the community,” Eshraghi said.

Verveer said he is not worried about large businesses dominating the city because there are few restaurants or bars in Madison that are large enough to have a 300-person capacity. Club Majestic and Madison Avenue are the exceptions, he added.

“I don’t know what other communities in the state have come against the quota,” Olsen said. “It seems to me it’s time for a review.”

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (January 18, 2005 @ 9:33am):

Mr. Eshraghi thinks "the licenses were given out too freely over the years", does he? This actually reveals the true motivation of the bar owners - reducing competition, not having more licenses to compete with. We're stuck in this stupid problem because of the goddamn Tavern League itself, which lobbied for these limits in the late '90s to reduce competition. Well, now it's working. I for one, as a drinker, am glad the ALRC has been stacked with progressives who have been giving away more liquor licenses and allowing more live music than in the past. That means better competition and cheaper drinks for us! Although it's not surprising, it's still disappointing to see a tavern owner like Mr. Eshraghi complaining about there being too many places for us to party.

Anonymous (January 18, 2005 @ 12:07pm):

I believe Eshraghi was making the point that the number of licenses wasn't a secret and that it shouldn't be a surprise that they're running out.

"Although it's not surprising, it's still disappointing to see a tavern owner like Mr. Eshraghi complaining about there being too many places for us to party."

He never said any such thing.

Anonymous (January 18, 2005 @ 12:13pm):

Anonymous (January 18, 2005 @ 4:39pm):

That's fair. All I know is that he thinks licenses have been given out "too freely over the years." That's crap. We should all sue the goddamn tavern league over this. Where are those students who sued because of the drink special ban?!

Anonymous (January 19, 2005 @ 3:17pm):

Again, I think you're missing the point. The smaller problem is: knowing that there was a finite amount, they were given out too freely.

The larger problem is that there IS a state-mandated finite amount at all. I don't believe Eshraghi's bar was even in business back when that law passed.