The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-03-25

proposed for restriction, would mean property owners in the center of the city, where Exchange place is practically without liquor establish ments, would suffer if, and when, any of several adjacent liquor es- tablishments closed. They could not then lease prorerty to similar es- tablishments within an approximate four-fifths of a square mile and the city would lose heavily in taxes. Local Discretion
 In his plea for the amendment, MT. Ryan remarked that the state had left to the cities the matter of conducting their liquor business re- strictions, adding that the liquor business is privileged" because per- mitS must be obtained from the commission and this state body and the dealers are responsible to the commission for their conduct. But, he declared, the amendment "has teeth in it," such as the 30-day closing clause, which would tend to make the liquor dealers protect their investments by keeping the law in every respect"
 "The trouble with the state liquor law" he said, lis that it does not restrict the number of liquor places. In 1918 and before the number was restricted according to population, Waterbury had about 150 and now it has over 900. When liquor place is opened the real estate values in the vicinity decline. Under the state liquor law the property owners have no protection against having liquor places opened in their vicinity.
 c. J. Daly of Robbins street re- marked that he opposed the ordi- nance but favored limiting the num- Der of licensed establishments. In tk's ke was joined by Mrs. Daly.
 John c. Herbst, representing a number of property owners, remark ed that MT. Ryan's agrument might be applied to elimination of gaso- line stations, all manner of stores in the same lines of business.
 Restrictions T.
 Nicholas Martone expressed the views supported by several property owners, saying that he favored re- striction of the number of the es- tablishments but opposed the 30-day and. IO00-feet features. Among those voicing this thought were Harold Johnson and Andrew Johr- son of Hillside avenue, William Mecca, Bank street; Michael Co., lucci, William Murray, William Yer riker, Anthony Capaldo and others. MT. Capaldo asked how anyone could sell out his business if his h- cense was suspended, provided there was another establishment within 1000 feet and President Ryan re- piled that the owner, in question, could continue his business as a res taurant.
 Alderman Peter J. Griffin inquired how this could be effected if the property, in question, was tavern and pointed out, after obtaining specifications of the ordinance, that tavern might not be opened even on parallel street under the 1,000- foot restrictive clause.
 School Commissioner Nathan Freedman joined President Ryan and Alderman Reiner in support of the ordinance. and Ryan remarked that the few persons attending the hearing evidenced a general support for the ordinance. Otherwise, he said, there would have been many at the hearing to voice protest.
 Teeth in Bill
 Ryan described the 30-day feature as the most important consideration in the proposal, the teeth" to keep liquor dealers from breaking the law.
 Under the present law" he said. eff his license is suspended he can just turn the business over to his bartender. This would prevent the premises ever being used again for liquor selling.
 "If the state law limited the num-