The next couple of weeks could see a remaking of alcohol beverage sales in New Jersey. We hope not. The case for doing so hasn’t nearly been made.
At the start of the year, Gov. Phil Murphy made it a priority to greatly expand the availability of liquor licenses for sale. His administration estimates a flood of new alcohol sellers could bring in up to $1 billion in revenue for state government.
The governor hasn’t convinced legislators to do this. Instead, in June they gave him a bill to give craft brewers relief from some regulations, such as restrictions on their sale of food and holding of events. In early fall Murphy said he would conditionally veto the bill after the November election and insisted that its provisions be considered as part of his liquor license revenue boosting plan. Last month, just before the craft brewery bill would have become law without his signature, Murphy did just that.
People are also reading…
Legislative support for the craft breweries bill was unanimous in both the Senate and Assembly. Sen. Michael Testa, one of many sponsors of the relief bill, said at the time that Murphy’s liquor proposal was separate from the issues facing breweries and “they should not be used as a bargaining chip.”
Murphy’s proposed changes also shouldn’t be made without addressing some important questions about how a big increase in alcohol sellers would affect the public. Too many lives already are lost or harmed by drinking, and increasing alcohol availability risks increasing such tragedies.
New Jersey already allows one liquor license for each 3,000 people in a municipality. Murphy has said more licenses would create new businesses, but hasn’t considered the overall effect on communities.
Murphy told legislators he would only sign their craft breweries bill if they made more than 40 changes to it, including a wholesale rewriting of important sections. His conditional veto specified the bill must mostly prohibit license renewals by holders who failed to request a renewal in the year following its expiration. Municipalities also must be allowed to sell licenses that had not been actively used in the past eight years.
The liquor industry would seem at risk of losing a lot of money and business under Murphy’s license-multiplying proposal. Some of that would come from increased competition, which is not without some advantage to the public. Existing liquor licenses, however, which have cost businesses on average $350,000, would plunge in value.
In his veto message, Murphy sympathized with the easing of craft breweries restrictions and vowed to keep pursuing his transformation of the alcohol beverage market.
“Our craft alcohol industry continues to grow throughout the state, and our beer and wine manufacturers, distilleries and meaderies deserve our support to help them succeed. Allowing these industries to expand their events privileges and to partner with other local businesses, like food vendors, will bolster local downtown economies across the state,” Murphy said. “However, I believe that this legislation, standing alone, does not sufficiently enhance our antiquated liquor license laws. … While these changes are an important step forward in liquor license reform, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the Legislature to pass even broader and more comprehensive reform.”
All of Murphy’s fellow Democrats in the Legislature voted for the breweries bill.
Sen. Vin Gopal, a prime sponsor, told New Jersey Monitor that the bill as passed was a good bill, and shouldn’t be saddled with the changes sought by Murphy.
Murphy’s proposal needs much more consideration by the public before a vote is held on it. The Legislature surely has the votes to override his veto since every member voted for the bill.
Enact the relief for craft breweries now, and next year the Murphy administration could make a better effort to convince legislators and the public of the advantages of his plan.