Petitioners seeking to call on election to legalize alcohol sales in Donley County were halfway to their goal of collecting 413 signatures as of Tuesday.
Supporters of the measure say they intend to deliver their petition to county officials by next week. The petition seeks an election to allow the sale of all alcoholic beverages including mixed drinks. The drive includes the sale of alcoholic beverages and mixed beverages.
Jack Craft is heading the petition drive, and he says his reasons for wanting to legalize alcohol sales are economic.
“My whole intention is to increase the tax base of Clarendon and Donley County and to increase the sponsors we can get for the museum and the rodeo,” Craft said. “By bringing in more outside sponsors, we can give our local merchants some relief and bring more outside money into town.”
A study conducted this year by the Perryman Group on the wet/dry issue in Canadian found that legalizing alcohol sales there could generate $7.6 million in business activity annually, create 116 permanent jobs, and increase tax receipts to local governments by $426,000 per year. The impact in Donley County would be less, but Perryman’s study encourages voters to be informed.
“Decisions related to alcoholic beverages sales involve a number of criteria, and voters should consider and be informed about all of them in determining their position,” the study says. “On a purely economic basis, however, the proposed measures lead to increases in business activity across a spectrum of industries as well as enhanced fiscal resources.”
But opponents of the petition and of legalizing alcohol sales say the increased income – if there is any – won’t offset the fiscal and social costs related to alcohol. Clarendon Alderman Will Thompson is one resident who opposes the legalization drive.
“The question is one of availability up and down US 287,” Thompson said, raising concerns about drunk driving. “It’s available here now, but it’s filtered because it’s on Highway 70. It’s always been sort of sequestered to Howardwick and the lake area.”
Thompson also worries about the cost to local governments if alcohol is available.
“There will be costs and repercussions,” he said. “We need to consider are we willing to pass new laws for safety, new funds for law enforcement, and new laws for underage drinkers. The cost here will be more than in Amarillo, so in the end all we have done is make it more available for underage drinkers.”
The petition must be signed by 35 percent of the number of county voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Vargas said 1,180 people voted in that election in 2010, which would put the threshold for the petition at 413 signatures.
Organizers are trying to submit the petition to the clerk’s office by July 8 so that county commissioners can act on the petition at their regular session on August 12. Vargas said the final petition would have to sit in her office for 30 days before county commissioners can receive it and order the election no more than 71 days before the election date.
Petitioners are also busy in Hemphill County, seeking to legalize the sale of alcohol and mixed beverages in the City of Canadian. Alcohol sales began this month in Perryton after Ochiltree County voters approved legalizing package sales in May. Voters in Armstrong County approved package sales in May. Silverton, Childress, and Shamrock have all also voted wet in the last few years.
Why are those who oppose the legalization of alcohol in Clarendon called “detractors”? Why not “opponents”? A “detractor” is one who draws away, diverts, or distracts from the value of something, or someone who draws one’s attention from something more important to something less important. That seems somewhat misleading to me. Those who oppose the sale of alcohol in Clarendon are doing none of those things. We truly believe that the facts support that such legalization will be a costly measure for the citizens of our town.
Words matter. I do hope in the future this newspaper will not place inaccurate labels on those who have a different viewpoint and fairly present both sides of this issue without being a platform to bolster the opinions of one side.
Words do matter, and in retrospect “detractors” was not the best choice for that headline, and I apologize if anyone was offended by it. The body of the article does refer those opposing as “opponents,” and that would have been better in the headline as well.