Dear Readers,
I had an email sent to me and was asked to publish it for you to read and think about. It is as follows: Ms. JaegerBaird, I
wrote a letter to the editor for both the Crowsnest Pass Herald and the
Pass Promoter, but unfortunately missed the deadlines for both (as I
was only recently made aware of the issue I write about below). I would
like to get the word out about a decision that is to be made by Council
on April 17 and am hoping that you might find the content of my letter
appropriate for sharing with the readers on your blog. (Or at least for discussion with your family, friends and colleagues!) Thank you in advance for your assistance. Thanks! Dana Dear Editor: My
name is Dana Tartal, and my father-in-law is Matt Tartal, owner of
Frankslide Liquor in Frank, AB. I am writing to ensure that the
residents and business owners of the Municipality of Crowsnest Pass are
aware of the potential consequences of a decision that is set to be made
by Council via Public Hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, April 17, 2012.
These consequences will impact not only my father-in-law and his
business, but also the other residents and business owners of Crowsnest
Pass alike. If
approved, Bylaw No. 844, 2012, would allow a liquor store to be built
along Hwy. 3 in Frank, adjacent to the current locations of the Fast Gas
and A&W restaurant… and less than 500 metres east of an existing
liquor store in a community of only 263 residents (many of whom are
minors)! Now,
I encourage you to ask yourself whether or not the approval of Bylaw
844 would be a good idea for your community and your family. As a
small-town mother and business owner myself, I would propose that it
would be reckless and irresponsible for several reasons; to be fair,
let’s look at both the positive and negative impacts of this decision. The benefits The
owner of the proposed liquor store would enjoy his or her share of
profits, and the municipality would receive increased tax revenues (at
least until the weaker of the two liquor stores closes down). While a
certain amount of competition is healthy and vital to a free market
economy, there is a threshold at which point the supply outweighs the
existing demand. In this case, there are some significant negative
impacts that could result. The collateral damage The
proximity and density of liquor stores in an area should be of
particular importance to a community. There are many influential
municipalities (including Edmonton, AB) who have already imposed bylaws
specifically limiting the proximity of liquor stores in order to protect
the wellbeing of community members as well as competing businesses.
High densities of liquor stores in a particular area could result in
increased Gaming and Liquor Act offenses. With greater competition
comes an increased risk of selling liquor to minors in order to maintain
revenues. The
approval of Bylaw 844 is akin to placing two A&W restaurants right
beside each other. First of all, the franchise would never allow it
because it simply doesn’t make sense; secondly, the two businesses sell
the exact same products from the same distributors. In Alberta, the
Alberta Liquor and Gaming Commission strictly regulates and controls all
liquor products available for resale in the province. This means we’re
not talking Teen Burgers versus Big Macs. Both liquor stores only have
access to identical products, completely inhibiting the opportunity to
differentiate oneself from the competition. The
proposed liquor store is also less than a 30 second drive from the
existing liquor store in Frank. This is the gateway to the municipality
for all westbound traffic into the community. How will this impact the
perception of the travelling public and tourists alike? The
municipality is currently reviewing the popular Thunder in the Valley
event because of the risk to public safety; however, approving Bylaw 844
would create an image that this is a ‘party’ community. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, approval of Bylaw 844 would be in
non-compliance with numerous policies outlined in the Crowsnest Pass’
Municipal Development Plan (MDP). Bylaw 844 requires a Land Use Bylaw
amendment because a liquor store is not a prohibited use on a C-2 zoned
lot; however, MDP Policy 9.4 states that “when land use bylaw amendments
are proposed to accommodate new commercial uses, consideration shall be
made to existing and adjacent land use patterns in the area.”
Accordingly, having two liquor stores practically side-by-side should
not warrant an approved amendment. Additionally,
MDP policies state that the municipality will “support existing local
businesses”, “protect existing (commercial) developments”, and “attempt
to manage adverse impacts on adjacent activities”. It is clear that
approving Bylaw 844 will set dangerous precedence by conveying that the
municipality will contravene its own policies, putting all local
businesses at risk. Would
this new liquor store serve a need in the community that currently
isn’t being met by the five liquor stores already operating throughout
the municipality? Whether or not you agree with the statements I’ve
made above, it’s important that you talk about this upcoming decision
with your family, friends and colleagues. Evaluate the implications it
may have on the social and business environment of the community, and
how it may impact your family. Have your voice heard on April 17. Dana Tartal Mayerthorpe, AB |
 |
|||||||
 
Categories2010 CNP Election2010 Election Results Around Alberta Council Crowsnest Pass Events & Happenings Crowsnest Pass Ratepayer's Association Daily Blog Happy Holiday's Humor In & Around Canada In And Around The Crowsnest Pass Interesting Stuff Just Another Day... List of Candidates Misc. Site Info. Musings On The Campaign Trail Polls Reporting on the Municipality Rum Runner Day's School Busing Special Day's The Issues The World Around Us What The Heck??? |
|
 |
|||||
    |
|||||||
