Skip to main content

Restaurant reform has two sides


As part of a term project, the students of Geography 461 (Economic Geography) are investigating the pros and cons of the restaurant reform/liquor by the drink initiative. One team has been directed to promote the initiative and a second has been directed to oppose it. Here are some of their main arguments.

In Favor of Restaurant Reform

We’ve all heard it a million times: There’s nothing to do in Martin. While that complaint is an exaggeration, it is based on the rather accurate perception that this town has its limitations.

When it comes to options for decent restaurant meals or part-time jobs, for example, Martin seems to offer very few choices for its students.

One good choice we do have awaits us on Nov. 5. The restaurant reform initiative is on the ballot. If approved, it will allow alcoholic beverages to be served in licensed dining establishments.

In contrast to the images presented by opponents to the initiative, approval will not turn Martin into Potterville. It will not allow bars and liquor stores to pop up on every corner nor necessarily result in rampant drunkenness or immorality.

Instead, it will simply allow the citizens of Martin the choice of staying within the city limits if they want to eat at a nice restaurant and have a glass of wine with the meal.

In a survey of Martin residents in 2000, Younger Associates found that 73 percent of the respondents left Weakley County to eat at restaurants such as O’Charley’s at least once a month.

Additionally, 62 percent wanted to have major restaurant chains in Martin. Since sales of alcoholic beverages are major profit centers for upscale restaurants, the arrival of these types of establishments is unlikely without reform. It will also create jobs.

If one needs any proof of the changes that are possible, look at the case of Murray, Kentucky where a similar reform measure was approved.

Eleven new restaurants have opened in Murray over the last several years. Many of the new jobs were filled by students in need of part-time work.

And for those who fear that crime will increase, take yet another look at Murray. In the first eight months of 2001, DUI arrests decreased from the previous year.

In short, the Restaurant Reform initiative allows for greater choice and more opportunities with little risk. For those who can vote in Martin on Nov. 5, we advocate approval of the initiative.

Members of this team include Cassie Burnham, Hideto Harada, Tsutae Matsuo, Nicholas Quinton and Jessica Sar.

In Opposition to Liquor by the Drink

Alcohol and economic development do not necessarily mix. Good restaurants and new jobs are not dependent on relaxed liquor laws.

Moreover, the stable social environment that is needed for true economic development can be undermined by the wider availability of alcohol.

Proponents of liquor by the drink who argue that it is needed to bring new upscale chain restaurants ignore two key factors. First, many respectable chains do not prerequire alcohol beverage sales.

In response to inquiry by an advocacy group from Georgia, Applebee’s marketing coordinator has stated that their “openings are based on population, location, median income and traffic count.”

Alcohol was not mentioned. Other chains such as Outback Steakhouse have opened very successful units within dry counties in Arkansas and Kentucky.

Second, as suggested by the Applebee’s coordinator, the argument that liquor by the drink will bring these chains to Martin ignores what really matters in restaurant site selection – numbers.

These chains are unlikely to open in Martin regardless of our liquor laws because of insufficient population and a low traffic counts.

Martin’s population and traffic would have to at least double before chains such as Applebee’s or Outback would even begin to consider it as a potential location.

Martin thus needs to look beyond the pipedream of chain restaurants to increase its attractiveness for new investment.

Wider availability of alcohol is certainly not the answer either.

As noted in an earlier letter to The Pacer, a University of Arkansas study from 1999 found significantly higher rates of DUIs, rape, robbery and vandalism in that state’s wet countries.

Similar problems with alcohol are found on college campuses.

The Commission of Substance Abuse at Colleges and Universities reported in 1994 that 95 percent of all violent crimes and 40 percent of academic problems at institutions of higher education are alcohol-related.

In short, widespread availability of alcohol tends to make both communities and universities less desirable.

To be against liquor by the drink does not mean to be against economic development. We simply ask for and seek more realistic and less destructive measures to improve our community and campus.

On Nov. 5, we ask you to vote against liquor by the drink. Members of this team include Aline Ferreira, Pil-hong Park, Daniel Petty, Brent Summers, Kazuko Watanabe and Shannon Woodrick.