in the Baltimore Sun, including a snapshot of MCDCC Member Aaron Kaufman, and Your4State.
Showing posts with label alcohol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alcohol. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Alcohol Tax Bill Sponsors and Supporters
Polling Shows Support for Alcohol Tax
Aaron Kaufman, a new member of MCDCC and a strong supporter of the alcohol tax increase, passed along the results of a poll conducted by OpinionWorks for Maryland Citizen's Health Initiative.Overview
Our most recent Maryland statewide voter poll, conducted December 20-28, 2010 among 663 likely voters statewide, has found overwhelming support for an increased tax of 10 cents per alcoholic drink tied to funding health-related priorities. Two-thirds of likely voters support the proposed alcohol tax increase.
If dedicated to deficit reduction, support for the alcohol tax increase remains strong, with a solid majority supporting an alcohol tax increase. At a time of continuing economic stress for average households and little appetite for new taxes, there are strong indications that Maryland voters believe the State’s leaders should make an exception to pass an increased alcohol tax.
Detail
Strong Support for an Alcohol Tax Increase
Two-thirds of the electorate (66%) favor an increased tax of 10 cents per alcoholic drink if the revenue is dedicated to health-related priorities such as alcohol and drug treatment and prevention, health care for the uninsured, training for health care workers, and programs for people with developmental disabilities and mental health needs. A near-majority of 45% of Maryland voters say they “feel that way strongly” about their support. Less than one-third of voters (31%) oppose the alcohol tax increase.
A majority of 55% of Maryland likely voters support an increased alcohol tax tied to deficit reduction, with nearly four voters in ten (39%) saying they feel that way strongly.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Ali Calls Out King on Slate Issue
District 39 Senate challenger Saqib Ali has called on Senator Nancy King to return all campaign money she has collected from the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries. He is also urging her to leave a slate controlled by Senate President Mike Miller that we believe funded a push poll against Ali with tobacco money. King's campaign tried to rebut that allegation this afternoon. In the meantime, King has signed on to support an alcohol tax increase after Ali and his supporters have criticized her over alcohol-related issues for months. Following is Ali's press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2010
ALI CONTINUES GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING PUSH, CALLS ON KING TO RETURN TAINTED CAMPAIGN FUNDS
State Senate Challenger Speaks Out Against Special Interest Involvement in District 39 Race
(Gaithersburg, MD)- State Delegate Saqib Ali reported that 77% of his campaign funds have come from individuals in his most recent campaign finance report. By contrast, his opponent Nancy King reported that only 24% of her funds were donated by individuals.
“I am proud that the vast majority of my funds come from ordinary people,” said Ali. “If elected to the State Senate I will be responsive to my constituents and not beholden to the alcohol, tobacco, or gambling industries.”
King also accepted $6,750 from alcohol and gambling interests in the past fundraising period alone, while a slate she is a member of took $3,000 from the tobacco behemoth Phillip Morris Corporation.* This slate also paid for a "push-poll" that spread verifiably false information about Ali.
“I have never taken a dime from the alcohol or gambling industries” said Ali. “We already knew that Nancy King had taken $8,500 from gambling mogul William Rickman through the notorious LLC campaign finance loophole. These new revelations further underscore just how beholden Nancy is to the special interests that control Annapolis and undermine the safety of our children. No real Democrat would ever rely so completely on dirty money."
Ali went on to say,"I urge Nancy to immediately return all the money that her campaign has directly or indirectly received from the gambling, alcohol and tobacco industries. She should also withdraw from the incumbent Senate slate which is funded by Phillip Morris Corporation. These actions must be taken in a public and independently verifiable way."
Ali, who lives in Gaithersburg, was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 2006 and represents Maryland’s 39th Legislative District, which includes Washington Grove and parts of Gaithersburg, Germantown, North Potomac, Montgomery Village and Derwood. In the private sector, he works as a software engineer. Ali received a Bachelors and Masters Degree from University of Maryland College Park in computer science. Ali and his wife Susan are proud parents of two young daughters, Sofia and Sascha. You can learn more about Ali and his campaign by visiting www.Ali4Senate.com.
###
* http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2010/08/big-daddy-smokes-saqib-ali.html
Friends of Nancy King Contributions from Alcohol and Gambling Interests (Source: Maryland BOE):
Maryland Jockey Club, $500, 6/28/2010
Arundel Amusements, Inc. T/A Bingo World, $1,000, 6/02/2010
Delta Bingo Holdings, Inc., $1,000, 6/01/2010
Donald Wayson Bingo Account, $1,000, 5/27/2010
Maryland Beer Wholesalers Association PAC, $250, 6/19/2010
MD-DE-DC Beverage Association, $1,000, 7/28/2010
Thoroughbred Horseman's PAC, $1,000, 6/04/2010
Blake Cordish (of Cordish Cos.), $1,000, 7/29/2010
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Ali vs. King on Gambling, Alcohol
This is a YouTube clip released by Saqib Ali from his August 5 debate with Senator Nancy King on News Channel 8.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Leggett Testifies in Favor of Drunk Driving Ignition Interlock Bill
Following is the testimony of County Executive Ike Leggett before the House Judiciary Committee on behalf of HB 743, a bill sponsored by Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) that would mandate ignition interlocks on vehicles owned by convicted drunk drivers. The interlocks are breathalyzers that require the driver to submit a sober breath sample to start the vehicle. Leggett and his wife were hit by a repeat drunk driver in a car crash last year. Last year, the bill passed the Senate unanimously but did not get out of the House.
Testimony of County Executive Ike Leggett
Before the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee
March 3, 2010
Chairman Vallario, members of the Judiciary Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to offer a few words of support for Delegate Kramer’s Drunk Driving Elimination Act, House Bill 743.
Last year I survived a very close call in an automobile collision.
My wife and I were hit by a repeat drunk driver - a man who allegedly ignored the conditions of his probation and jeopardized the public safety by making the decision to drink and drive again.
We cannot know how many times he made the decision to drive under these conditions since his sentencing in August of 2008.
Had this driver's sentence included the use of an Ignition Interlock device, I might not have experienced that crash. And, had this legislation passed last year, others might have been spared a similar ordeal.
Ignition interlocks are breathalyzer devices that arc wired into a vehicle's ignition system. To start the vehicle, the convicted offender has to provide a sober breath sample by blowing into the interlock device. Interlock technology has come a long way since their initial development in the early 1970s.
Interlocks are highly accurate, reducing repeat drunk driving offenses by 65 percent with circumvention protections in place to prevent cheating.
The polls show the public strongly in favor of mandating ignition interlocks for convicted drunk drivers. In a recent poll even 82 percent of offenders believe interlocks are effective and fair.
The common misconception is that "first-time" drunk drivers have made a “one-time” mistake. That is far from the reality. Research conducted by the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration shows that first-time offenders on average have driven drunk 87 times before their first arrest.
Plainly put, mandatory interlocks for convicted drunk drivers in Maryland can help reduce the risk to public safety from drunk drivers.
What we can do, we should do. I urge your support for House Bill 743.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Leggett, Floreen Support Alcohol Tax
County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council President Nancy Floreen have written a joint letter to General Assembly leadership in support of a bill raising the alcohol tax to finance services for the developmentally disabled and other health care programs. A poll released today is the latest one to find substantial public support for the tax. Following is the letter from the County Executive and the Council President.
Maryland's Twenty-First Century Prohibition
By Tom McQuighan.
Some Maryland residents have found that buying a favorite wine requires a trip to DC, VA, or WV and a surreptitious return. Others are shocked when, after spending a glorious day touring California wineries, they learn what they taste cannot be shipped home. And still others have been chagrined to learn that they cannot get a gift basket delivered if it contains a bottle of wine. Maryland is one of only four states that make direct shipping of wine a felony.
That could change if the Direct Wine Shipper SB 566 , sponsored by Sen. Jamie Raskin is passed by the MD assembly. If history is a guide, it will fail despite the bi-partisan group of 107 MD legislators that co-sponsor it – including 85% of the MoCo delegation. Direct Wine Shipper HB716 , House sponsor, Del. Carolyn Krysiak, Baltimore City, says that the very first constituent to visit her 20 years ago in the House was one who wanted these laws changed. If it goes her way, history will be made.
The Post opined in it is OP-ED “Maryland's liquor lobby and the politics of obstruction” that this “absurdity is a creation of Sen. Miller, Del. Busch and their legislative lieutenants in Annapolis influenced by the toxic of the liquor lobby's campaign cash.” But what is different this year is a smart, grassroots campaign led by Adam Borden and Marylanders for Better Beer and Wine Laws (MBBWL). Borden, of Baltimore City, has met with legislators, citizens, farm bureaus and government agencies across the state to encourage passage. Borden has even inspired Robert Parker, the world-acclaimed wine critic and Maryland resident, to write Governor O’Malley a personal plea for changes to the law.
Every Montgomery County Senator has signed on as a sponsor. The Montgomery County position on this measure under current leadership is to not oppose it. Even the Department of Liquor Control notes that in similar “control” 3-tier states such as New Hampshire the law work well: as it does not increase underage abuse, or impact retail store sales. Peter Franchot, State Treasurer, in a departure from his predecessor William Donald Schaefer, points to the tax benefits and potential to increase in-state wineries jobs as reasons to support it. Only 5 MOCO Delegates have not: Herman Taylor, D14; William Bronrott, D16; Kumar Barve D17; Sheila Hixson D20; and Charles Barkley D39.
Borden has used social media, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, Meet up and YouTube as part of a campaign that counts on hundreds of volunteers to make this a hot issue throughout the state. All of this points to why an army of thousands have signed petitions, focused letters to their elected and expect a different outcome. You’ll see them again at the Rockville Wine Festival this summer looking for answers if this gets hung up again due to committee wrangling.
The steam throughout the State against such potential obstructionists was captured by The Baltimore Sun in “Thwarting Public Opinion Over Wine Law Would be Serious Mistake.” The Sun says that “elected officials who act contrary to the views of voters are likely to find the electorate unforgiving this November. Woe to any politician who thinks the voters won't notice such glaring arrogance.” Borden says it differently, “2010 will be the MD Vintage for Direct Wine Shipping. Every year a few holdout states jump on board, so an election year is perfect time to do so in MD. It costs the state nothing, raises revenue and creates jobs, what is not to like about that?”
On the recent You Tube press announcement, Sen. Raskin, despite his lack of personal interest in a drink that gives him headaches, says he sponsors this bill because the issue commands extraordinary popularity across the state and that he is responding to the yearly deluge of calls to his office. Sen. Pugh, Baltimore County, the other lead Senator, and another non-drinker, says Marylanders should have same rights as citizens in other states.
Ironically, the rules, which date back to Prohibition and were intended to rein in organized crime, now serve as catalyst for turning even the most casual wine enthusiasts into felony smugglers. Some of these say that Prohibition did not end the tradition of alcohol distributors paying officials for political favors.
Time will tell if mbbwl.org efforts will make a difference this year. The hearing in the House is scheduled for Friday, March 5.
INTERESTING FACT: "There are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?" Laurence Tribe, Professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
Tom McQuighan is the Montgomery County Coordinator of Marylanders for Better Beer and Wine Laws.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Alcohol Tax: Who’s Standing Up for the Disabled?
By Aaron Kaufman.
The Bill Bronrott, Verna Jones,(D-Baltimore) and Rich Madaleno alcohol tax bill (HB 832, SB 717) was introduced recently. The bill is named after the amazing disability activist Lorraine Sheehan who passed away recently. The House bill has 41 sponsors and the Senate bill has 8. These are wonderful numbers and reflect the widespread belief that the alcohol tax should be raised to support people with Developmental Disabilities and those recovering from addiction.
I believe that by declining to sponsor the legislation the following members of the Montgomery County Delegation put the desires of the alcohol lobby ahead of the vital needs of people with Developmental Disabilities:
Senators:
Kramer D-14
Garagiola D-15
King D-39
Delegates:
Kaiser D-14
Rice* D-15
Barve D-17
HellerD-19
Hixson D-20
Barkley D-39
The views of these delegation members are counter to those of the Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Carroll County Times and Maryland Diamondback. (A person knows an idea is meritorious when college students are willing to pay more for their beer!) In addition, the alcohol tax increase is supported by 83% of Marylanders according to a recent Gonzales Research Poll. I want to extend particular kudos to Delegates Frick and Gilchrist for sponsoring the legislation because it is always difficult for freshman legislators to support legislation their committee chairman, in this case Delegate Sheila Hixson, is very much opposed to. I am especially disappointed in Delegate Kumar Barve’s decision not to sponsor the legislation. One would have hoped that he would have used his position as House Majority Leader to advocate for this legislation that benefits the most vulnerable in our society. In addition, he chairs the Ways and Means subcommittee on Revenue so one would expect that he would support a measure to bring additional revenue to the state’s depleted coffers.
Sadly, my friend Sheila Hixson remains opposed to the legislation. I hope she however will do the honorable thing and let the measure have an up or down vote this year. To do otherwise would be anti-democratic. I hope her Senate counterpart Ulysses Currie (D-25) will do the same. I urge all readers of MPW to contact their legislators to express support for this common sense legislation. HB 832/SB/717.
* Despite his opposition to the alcohol tax increase, Delegate Rice is developing a thoughtful alternative.
Friday, January 08, 2010
The Alcohol Tax: Hope for the Most Vulnerable
By Aaron Kaufman.
As the General Assembly is soon set to reconvene, lawmakers face a clear choice: either following the desires of the liquor lobby or the needs of those like me with developmental disabilities. For the past several years, Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16) and Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) have introduced common sense legislation to raise the alcohol tax 5 cents at the wholesale level. (Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez has a similarly positive bill she will once again introduce.) This increase would benefit the 19,000 individuals who are currently waiting for DD services. The tax increase would also support services for those recovering from addictions and the state’s general fund.
The tax increase is supported by the Baltimore Sun editorial board as well as the Carroll County Times editorial board. It is also supported by more than 83% of Marylanders according to a recent Gonzales Research Poll.
The tax on beer and wine has not been raised since President Nixon was in office and the tax on spirits has not been raised since the time of President Eisenhower! The tax increase has not come to a vote in either chamber because of the strenuous objections of State Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller (D-27) and longtime Delegate Sheila Ellis Hixson (D-20). Sheila has served us well in many ways for so many years and is a friend of mine. (I’ve contributed to her 2010 reelection campaign). However I could not disagree more with her on this issue and I hope she allows the bill to come to a vote in the Ways and Means Committee. It is my understanding that she has recently softened her longtime stance. Delegate Craig Rice (D-15), also opposes the alcohol tax increase, yet he pledged to a group of disabilities advocates on October 5, 2009 to put in a bill with an alternative revenue stream to fund DD services. Hopefully, he will fulfill his promise. Unfortunately, Governor O’Malley has chosen to remain neutral on this topic during his entire tenure in office.
Senator Miller has a genuine conflict of interest. His brother David Miller owns BK Miller Meats and Liquor in Clinton, Maryland. The liquor store makes between $10 and $20 million dollars annually. With such a clear conflict of interest, I would hope that Senator Miller recuses himself from all deliberations of the alcohol tax this session.
The choice for lawmakers this session is to choose between the liqueur lobby and people with disabilities. We will be watching to see where the lawmakers place their priorities.
P.S. To hear some of the real and desperate stories of some of the 19,000 people on the waiting list go to www.endthewaitnow.com.
Disclosures: I am the Vice Chairman of the Montgomery County Commission on People with Disabilities. I am also a member of the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Council. The Council supports increasing the tax The Commission has no stated position. However, these views in this note are entirely my own and not necessary those of the Commissions or Council. Also, I have contributed to Rich, Ana and Bill’s campaigns and they are wonderful friends and mentors.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saqib Ali and Nancy King Discuss Progressive Issues, Part Four
Part Four: Underage Drunk Driving and Alcopops.
By Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39).
Drunk driving has got to be one of the most wreckless activities that I can possibly imagine. It is a scourge on our society. Some of my closest friends have been killed by drunk drivers. Our County Executive Ike Leggett was recently injured by one. Unfortunately it is an epidemic in our community. I hear about friends-of-friends getting DUIs all the time. So of course when I got elected to the legislature, I planned to do everything in my power to reduce drunk driving. Especially underage drunk driving.
That's why last year when a pro-alcohol bill came up in Annapolis, I knew immediately that I would oppose it. Senate Bill 745 dealt with restrictions on sales of alcoholic beverages known as "Alco-Pops." Alco-Pops are fruity malt-beverages that are insidiously marketed towards young people.... especially young women. Alco-Pops are especially dangerous because the high alcohol content is masked by fruity flavors and attractive colorings. You've all seen them in liquor stores: drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade, Smirnoff Ice and Bacardi Breezer. The problem with Alco-Pops is that they are often consumed by underage kids -- kids who sometimes then get into cars and kill themselves or others. Unfortunately kids can too easily get their hands on these drinks since they are sold cheaply and commonly.
In late 2007 Attorney General Doug Gansler issued the common-sense ruling that these drinks were actually distilled spirits, not beer. And thus like all other distilled spirits, they should be taxed at a higher rate and sold only by holders of retail liquor licenses. This ruling would reduce underage drinking by restricting access and increasing prices. But the powerful alcohol industry in Annapolis was not amused. They wanted to keep their pipeline to underage kids going. So they introduced SB 745 that would nullify Gansler's ruling. This bill was widely panned by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other public safety advocates. There was simply no good reason it should have ever seen the light of day. But it passed over the the objections of a large minority of legislators.
The Washington Post wrote: "Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has issued an opinion that, under state law, these drinks are distilled spirits and should be taxed and distributed as such. The action has prompted an end-around by state lawmakers cozy with the beer and liquor industry...Their bill, passed by the Senate yesterday and now before the House, would formally define the drinks as beer, which would keep the drinks teen-friendly. The proposed definition is blatantly dishonest...Ease of access to these sweet but loaded beverages -- which are cutely disguised as cola, lemonade, iced tea or fruit punch -- also depends on how they are classified. Distilled spirits can be sold only by holders of retail liquor licenses. When classified as beer, the alcohol-flavored beverages can be sold by any location holding a beer license -- convenience stores and other spots more likely to be frequented by young people. True, underage consumption of any alcohol is already against the law, and, yes, kids can find older buyers to get any drink. But why increase the ease of access? Maryland lawmakers should reflect on that question before the final vote on this bad bill."
I voted against this bill, of course. There is nothing the alcohol industry could have given me to change my mind. Nancy voted for it. I'm sure she had her well-considered reasons. But it's just another fundamental difference in our legislative records.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Economy Must Be Really Bad If We Are Talking About Alcohol
By Marc Korman.
In some of the darkest days of the Great Depression, our legislators were not passing jobs programs or crafting fiscal stimulus packages, but were busy repealing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibition. This time, instead of increasing access to alcohol to get us through our economic malaise, plans are afoot to make it harder to buy a drink. The Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative has unveiled a new plan to help insure all Marylanders, partly paid for by an increase in alcohol taxes.
The proposal is described this way:Alcohol Tax: We propose to increase the state excise tax on alcohol in FY 2010. The state taxes on beer and wine have not increased since 1972, and the state tax on spirits has not increased since 1955. Maryland currently has the eighth-lowest tax in the nation for beer, the thirteenth-lowest tax for wine, and the third-lowest tax for spirits. We therefore propose a “Dime a Drink” increase in the state excise tax to $1.16 per gallon for beer, $2.96 per gallon for wine, and $10.03 per gallon for spirits. In addition to the revenue raised, an increase in the alcohol tax has public health benefits from the reduction of binge drinking, particularly among youths. We estimate total state revenue from the increase in the alcohol tax will be $1,015.0 million over the five-year budget window, with revenue of $197.0 in 2010. This revenue estimate incorporates the likely reduction in alcohol consumption caused by the higher net prices.
Maryland’s current tax rates on alcohol are $.09 per gallon for beer, $.40 per gallon for wine, and $1.50 per gallon of spirits, so the initiative is proposing some pretty hefty hikes. There are also federal taxes on alcohol, so it is not just the state taking a sip out of your beer.
Using so called sin taxes to pay for healthcare is not a new concept. In Maryland, an increase in the tobacco tax by $1.00 a pack (for a total of $2.00 a pack) during the 2007 Special Session helped pay for an expansion of the state Medicaid program to cover 100,000 of the state’s 800,000 uninsured.
Still, these proposed alcohol tax hikes are a bit extreme and unrealistic. These rates would make Maryland the highest taxer in the nation on beer and wine, and the eighth highest for spirits. Problematic for Montgomery County, where prices can already be a little higher due to direct control of alcohol sales, the District of Columbia would have significantly lower rates. I already know many people who travel out of Maryland for alcohol, and this could increase the trend. According to the Tax Foundation’s compilation of state taxes, the surrounding states alcohol tax rates are:
Beer/gallon Wine/gallon Spirits/gallon
DC $.09 $.30 $1.50 DE $.16 $.97 $3.75 MD $.09 $.40 $1.50
VA $.256 $1.51 $14.54
The proposal is also significantly more than even legislative leaders on this issue have been willing to promote. Here are the 2008 legislation session alcohol tax proposals:
Beer/gallon Wine/gallon Spirits/gallon
Gutierrez $.25 $1.00 $3.50
Bronrott/ $.27 $1.20 $4.50
Madeleno
Forehand $.54 $1.20 $4.50
I have been a proponent of the County trying to get increased revenue from alcohol sales. The County Executive should also rethink his opposition to opening County liquor stores on Sundays. One commenter on MPW even offered the suggestion that stores be open on Sunday instead of a weekday to keep operating costs roughly the same. Reforms like these, coupled with a modest increase in the alcohol tax, would make good policy both fiscally and socially.
Of course, given the perceived tax revolt, it is unlikely the General Assembly will raise taxes before the 2010 election. If they do, the funding will not go to new programs but will help balance the budget.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
MoCo's Alcohol Addiction
Ever wondered why the price of wine is so much higher in Montgomery County than elsewhere. This week, the City Paper went slumming and traveled out to MoCo to explore the operation of the county monopoly on beer, wine and liquor. Montgomery certainly has an interest in the monopoly that goes well beyond constraining the sale of alcohol:
The article missed another certain backer of the monopoly: DLC employees. I bet unionized employees for the Department of Liquor Control do better than equivalent store employees in non-control jurisdictions and would unsurprisingly like to keep their jobs.Standing in the middle of the Department of Liquor Control’s massive, 175,000-square-foot warehouse in Rockville, among nearly $20 million worth of booze, DLC Director George Griffin is pondering the question posed to him: Given the frustrations of some licensees, what service does the DLC provide that couldn’t be done better in the open, free-market system?
“There’s like a big picture and small picture,” says Griffin. “The big picture is that we are controlling alcohol. The people of Montgomery County made a decision to control alcohol…When [alcohol’s] abused, it has devastating consequences.”
Griffin then proceeds to reel off some impressive statistics on how control jurisdictions have lower rates of underage drinking and fewer alcohol-related traffic fatalities for people under 21 than open jurisdictions. (An independent study forwarded to me by the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association seems to confirm his stats.) But then Griffin pauses briefly and delivers a disarmingly direct kicker to his list of justifications for MoCo’s system: “And that’s in addition to the $22 million that we give the county in unrestricted funds.”
On the other hand, the system may drive business out of the County because people can get better selection and prices in neighboring jurisdictions. Total Wine in McClean, Virginia beats has far better prices and selection than MoCo stores. I wonder if anyone knows if the County would make more money simply levying a tax rather than running the business itself. A safe bet seems to be that DLC employees would strongly oppose the abolition of the current regime but that local restaurateurs would thrilled by it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
