“Family friendly” Branson has no say on the serving of alcohol in its theaters and attractions?

Can anyone reasonably deny that, from a “family “friendly” perspective,” alcohol, exponentially, causes more problems within families and kills more people than casino entertainment? Yet, “family friendly” Branson, although it railed against the alleged problems that casino entertainment in Rockaway Beach would cause families, has virtually ignored the expansion of the serving of intoxicating liquors into its traditional family friendly and alcohol free theatres and attractions.

The Ole Seagull has received email and other communications saying that the regulation of alcohol by the city of Branson is a moot point because only the state can regulate the sale of alcohol. Abraham Lincoln was once said to have been asked the question, “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?”He answered, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Can the city of Branson “make and enforce ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of all intoxicating liquors within its limits” if the City Attorney says that “alcohol is regulated exclusively by the state?” The answer is “Yes.” The City Attorney saying that “alcohol is regulated exclusively by the state” doesn’t make it the law.

The issue isn’t whether or not there should be expanded regulation. That is something between the community and those elected to represent it. Rather, it is an issue of whether or not the community even gets to discuss such expansion in a meaningful way with their elected representatives. How can that happen if both the people and their elected representatives are operating under an erroneous assumption?

As an example, at the August 25, 2003, “Regular Meeting” of the Branson Board of Aldermen, there was a discussion of a pending “resolution” on family values. A citizen inquired as to how the City could issue a resolution against gambling, controlled by the State, but not against the serving of alcohol in theaters. City Attorney Dan Wichmer said words to the effect of, “Since it’s not taking place in Branson [the gambling] the Board of Aldermen stated its opposition. On this resolution, because alcohol is regulated exclusively by the state there is nothing you could do about that topic in the resolution.”

A “resolution” is not an “ordinance” and could be used by the Branson Board of Aldermen to express their concerns about the expansion of the serving of intoxicating liquors into Branson’s traditionally family friendly alcohol free theatres and attractions even if intoxicating liquors were regulated exclusively by the state. That aside however, Section 311.220 of Missouri’s Liquor Control Law specifically authorizes cities to “make and enforce ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of all intoxicating liquors within their limits.”

The very first time the Ole Seagull called the state Liquor Control Board, the person he talked with, Steve Shimmers, referred him to a 2001, Missouri Supreme Court case, “State of Missouri, Respondent v. Entertainment Ventures I, Inc.” In this case the Missouri’s Supreme Court specifically stated, “The state’s authority to issue a resort license does not deprive an incorporated city of the authority to license the sale of liquor.” The opinion went on to say, “Put simply, the two sections are not contrary to or inconsistent with each other. Indeed, the two sections are entirely compatible and are part of a complementary system of state and local regulation of businesses that sell intoxicating liquor.”

Whether or not Branson chooses to exercise the authority given to it by statute and acknowledged by Missouri’s Supreme Court is one thing but having that authority is a matter of law. That said, an Ole Seagull questions whether one hundredth of the effort will be put into stopping the expansion of the serving of intoxicating liquors into Branson’s traditionally family friendly alcohol free theatres and attractions over the next few months as was put into keeping casino entertainment out of Rockaway Beach? The effort that will soon be made to foist a one percent retail sales tax, that some call the “chamber tax,” on the majority of the taxpayers of Branson and Taney County to be used to market Branson? Sadly, if history is any guide, probably not.

For those interested the Ole Seagull has posted the applicable Liquor Control Laws and Supreme Court decision cited above on the Branson Courier web site at www.bransoncourier.com. Just click on “Research” from the menu choices on the left then on “Missouri Law & Supreme Court Case- ability of cities to regulate the sale of alcohol.”

Gary Groman, a.k.a. “The Ole Seagull,” is an independent columnist and the editor of the Branson Courier. He may be reached by clicking here or by calling 417-339-4000.