Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/62031746/NY-Preemption-Report-8-3-11-Final
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 11:34:08+00:00

Document:
paper written for Centers for Disease Control by James F. Mosher, J.D. and Ryan Treffers, J.D. Alcohol Policy Consultations; Felton, C AND Robert Pezzolesi, M.P.H. New York Alcohol Policy Alliance, Syracuse, NY on NY State pre-emption on the regulation of alcohol sales and outlets. SUN is referenced for our work organizing residents to protect their neighborhoods from problem corner stores.
In theory, the regulation of retail alcohol outlet density may appear to be a simple matter; however, in practice, it often involves a complex interplay between State and local governments, much of which relates to the amount of control that local governments have over the number of retail alcohol outlets in their particular geographic area. In some States, local governments have substantial control over licensing decisions that influence alcohol outlet density, whereas in other States, they have little or no authority. The legal doctrine that determines this level of local control is called State preemption. The purpose of this report, therefore, is to introduce the State preemption doctrine and describe the effect it has on the regulation of alcohol outlet density in communities to public health practitioners, members of State and community coalitions, healthcare providers, and other interested groups The report also specifically discusses strict State preemption in New York State and how this level of control has limited local efforts to address alcohol outlet density in different communities (i.e., Oyster Bay/Long Beach; Syracuse; and Manhattans Lower East Side).
density, although this may be augmented with local zoning regulations. A small number of States have dual licensing systems, including Georgia and Louisiana. Exclusive local licensing with State minimum standards: The remaining States delegate licensing authority entirely to local governments and do not issue State licenses at all. Instead, the State establishes limitations on how that licensing authority is exercised. Local zoning regulations can also be used by local governments, which may be subject to limitations established in State law. Hawaii, Nevada, and Wisconsin are among the States that have this structure. Nevada does not have a State Alcoholic Beverage Control agency, although there are State laws that may affect how local governments regulate alcohol outlets.18 Although States generally fall into one of these categories of preemption, there are a variety of permutations. States may assign differing levels of preemption for differing aspects of alcohol retail regulation. For example, the State may permit local governments to determine the location of new retail outlets but deny them any authority to regulate retailers operating practices.19 Other States grant local authority only to certain cities, for example, those that have a city charter. States may also adopt a hybrid system. For example, Maryland has established local Alcoholic Beverage Control Boards that have primary responsibility for licensing decisions. Some of these boards are appointed by local governments, but others are appointed by the State and in effect operate as State entities. There is also a legal distinction between express and implied preemption. State preemption is said to be express when there is State legislation that specifically prohibits local regulation over alcohol outlet density in favor of State regulation. Implied preemption arises when a State regulatory scheme is so extensive that it leaves no room for local regulation, effectively establishing preemption by exclusion. Although logical in principle, application of these concepts by State courts is inconsistent both across and within States, as illustrated in the next section. In many cases, a definitive determination is not possible absent a court ruling. Given these complexities, communities will generally require independent legal research expertise to determine how preemption applies to the regulation of alcohol outlet density in their area. III. The New York State Preemption Doctrine A. Exclusive State Licensing Authority The New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law (ABC Law) is the foundation for regulating alcohol outlets in the State. Its purpose is to regulate and control the manufacture, sale and distribution within the State of alcoholic beverages for the purpose of fostering and promoting temperance in their consumption and respect for and obedience to law.20 Through its provisions, it regulates virtually all aspects of the sale and distribution of alcohol, including the location, number, and operating practices of retailers and the hours of distribution.21 The State Liquor Authority (SLA) is authorized to administer the ABC Laws and has the exclusive authority to issue alcohol retail licenses, subject only to the right of judicial review.
density has been fueled by a number of factors, including the gentrification of the LES and what Ocejo describes as a public/private partnership between the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) and ... real estate actors, property developers, and bar owners.64 The high alcohol outlet density, particularly with regard to on-premise establishments, has resulted in serious quality-of-life concerns among LES residents, most notably environmental noise.65 Other problems reported by area residents include property crime, traffic congestion, public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, public urination, vomiting, and problems with garbage and vermin resulting from overwhelmed infrastructure. Even bar owners in the neighborhood have complained that the overconcentration of outlets has had an adverse economic impact by lowering the value of their individual businesses.66 Manhattans Community Board No. 3 has led the effort to alleviate these problems. New York City community boards function as advisory bodies with regard to land use and zoning matters, the City budget, municipal service delivery, and many other matters relating to their communities welfare.67 This includes participation in the SLA licensing process. Applicants for alcohol retail licenses must notify the relevant community board 30 days prior to filing with the SLA.68 The boards are also mandated to act as consultants and fact-finders for the SLA in 500foot rule hearings.69 (The SLA must conduct a special hearing for a new on-sale alcohol outlet applicant if the proposed location is within 500 feet of certain types of existing licensed establishments.) Although the boards play a role in the licensing process, their influence is limited. The New York City Mayors Community Advisory Unit makes clear that community boards serve as advisors, advocates, and service coordinators but have no real authority in that they cannot order any City agency or official to perform any task.70 Community board input is also not binding on the SLA and community opposition alone is not sufficient to disapprove an application.71 Some community boards have leveraged their knowledge and community organizing skills to at least slow down the exponential growth in alcohol outlet density in their districts. For example, Community Board No. 3 has developed expertise pertaining to numerous ordinances, rules, and regulations and provides regular input into the SLA licensing process. Nevertheless, key informants report serious problems in developing effective strategies for reducing problems associated with alcohol retail density.72 For example, the SLA in New York State has historically responded to citizens quality of life complaints by referring them to the New York Police Department (NYPD), and the NYPD has responded by stating that problems associated with alcohol retail outlets are the jurisdiction of the SLA,73 thus frustrating concerned citizens and compromising the enforcement of liquor laws in the LES. Furthermore, the complexities of State licensing, city planning, and zoning processes have led to, among other problems, the placement of alcohol outlets in residential-only zoned areas.74 Several bills currently up in the New York State Assembly and New York State Senate would grant community boards a somewhat larger role in the alcohol retail licensing process,75 although none of them fundamentally change the top-down nature of the process.
Most key informants identified structural flaws with State regulatory systems, including problems with State laws and regulations and inadequate resources to enforce laws and regulations even if appropriately designed as the most important factors limiting the influence of communities over the number of retail alcohol outlets in their neighborhoods. The SLAs statutory mission and mandates combine two potentially conflicting goals protecting the public health and safety on the one hand, and promoting economic development and maximizing revenue on the other. The informants stated that the SLA is the impossible position of having both regulatory and economic partnership roles; the latter too often trumps the former. A concrete example of the laws tilt toward the economic development goal is found in the burden of proof provisions in the ABC law that apply to new license applications. As stated in an SLA document provided to the public: When the SLA receives an application, there is a general presumption that it will be approved unless there is a good reason not to approve it.77 Although the ABC law offers some guidance as to what constitutes a good reason, protestors must still overcome the presumption that issuing licenses fulfills a fundamental goal of the ABC law and the SLA. This is the case even when applying statutes designed to protect community health. For example, in the 500-foot hearings described above, the SLA must allow community input and the applicant has a more rigorous burden of proof. However, the rule allows the SLA to consider the public convenience and advantage, as well as the public interest in its final determination. Key informants report that when the SLA applies this standard, they often give more weight to even the most minimal economic benefits asserted by applicants than to the health and safety concerns raised by community groups. SLAs lack of resources exacerbates these problems. This is perhaps best illustrated by the dramatic erosion in SLA enforcement staff. In 2006, the New York SLA had 28 investigators who were responsible for overseeing 27,062 on-premise liquor licenses,78 or about 900 onpremise licenses per investigator. In 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that, in the previous year, the NY SLA had the second-worst ratio of enforcement personnel to licensed establishments of all the States,79 and the Office of the New York State Comptroller concluded in an audit that the SLA Enforcement Division did not routinely conduct follow-up investigations to ensure that violations have been corrected.80 Furthermore, given the severe budget crisis the State currently faces, it appears unlikely that additional enforcement positions will be created.
outlets that allow loitering in adjacent sidewalks, sell drug paraphernalia, have large numbers of alcohol advertisements on their windows and outdoor walls, and fail to monitor behavior in parking lots. The resulting data, although requiring some subjective judgments, can be used to graphically illustrate the problems associated with alcohol retail density. 3. Organizing residents, meeting with local policy makers, sponsoring colloquia, and conducting other activities that promote public discussion and debate. The adverse effects of alcohol outlet density are not well understood and are frequently taken as a given of community life. Public health practitioners and State and local coalitions can take a leadership role in educating key constituencies and leaders regarding the nature and scope of the problem and strategies for addressing it. Taken together, these actions can inform the discussion about the regulation of alcohol outlet density in States with strict preemption with the ultimate goal of preventing excessive alcohol consumption and the many health and social harms that are related to it.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008). Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI). Atlanta, GA: CDC. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/ardi.htm. Accessed April 18, 2011. 2 Campbell, C. A., Hahn, R. A., Elder, R., Brewer, R., Chattopadhyay, S., Fielding, J. et al. (2009). The effectiveness of limiting alcohol outlet density as a means of reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37, 556559; Gorman, D. M., Speer, P. W., Gruenewald, P. J., & Labouvie, E.W. (2001). Spatial dynamics of alcohol availability, neighborhood structure and violent crime. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 628 636; R. Scribner et al. (1995). The risk of assaultive violence and alcohol availability in Los Angeles County. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 335340; Saxer, S. R. (1995). Down with demon drink!: State strategies for resolving liquor outlet overconcentration in urban areas, Santa Clara Law Review, 35, 123; Parker, R. & Rebhun, L. (1995). Alcohol and homicide: A deadly combination of two American traditions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 3 D. Gorman. et al., supra n. 1.
Babor, T. F., Caetano, R., Casswell, S., Edwards, G., Giesbrecht, N., Graham, K. et al. (2003). Alcohol: No ordinary commodity. Research and public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
The Task Force is an independent, non-Federal, volunteer-based group of subject experts. It engages in a comprehensive process to review relevant research evidence with a goal of providing public health practitioners a foundation for implementing policy interventions addressing a wide variety of public health problems. The evidence for each intervention is rated as strong, sufficient, or insufficient to support a recommendation. For more information on the Task Force, see The Community Guide Web page, The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, at http://www.thecommunityguide.org/about/task-force-members.html (accessed March 14, 2011). 6 Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2009). Recommendations for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms by limiting alcohol outlet density. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 6, 570571. 7 For further discussion of State/local preemption, see Diller, P. (2007). Intrastate preemption. Boston University Law Review, 87, 11141175. 8 U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment. 9 U.S. Constitution, 21st Amendment. 10 See National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS). http://www.alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov (accessed March 7, 2011). 11 Gorovitz, E., Pertschuk M., & Mosher, J. (1998). Preemption or prevention? Lessons from efforts to control firearms, alcohol and tobacco. Journal of Public Health Policy, 19(1), 3750; Mosher, J. (2001). The perils of preemption. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association. Available at: http://alcoholpolicymd.com/pdf/Policy_Perils.pdf (accessed April 18, 2011). 12 Id.
Ashe, M., Jernigan, D., Kline, R. & Galaz, R. (2003). Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 14041408. 15 Mosher, J. & Saetta, S. (2008). Best practices in municipal regulation to reduce alcohol-related harms from licensed alcohol outlets. Oxnard, CA: Ventura County Behavioral Health Department. Available at: http://www.venturacountylimits.org/resources/article/F85A2D/policy-briefing-02-best-practices-in-municipal-regulation-toreduce-alcohol-related-harms-from-licensed-alcohol-outlets. Accessed March 7, 2011. 16 New York, see discussion, Section III infra; North Carolina, see State v. Williams, 283 NC 550, 196 SE2d 756 (1973). There are no systematic analyses of State/local alcohol licensing structures. These descriptions are based on independent legal research conducted by the authors. For further discussion, see Mosher (2001), supra n. 10. 17 GA Stat. Ann. 3-3-2(a); LA Stat. Ann. 26:493. Unless otherwise indicated, this memorandum uses the term regulation generally to refer to the legal authority governing the area, i.e., it is not limited to administrative regulations; similarly, law is not limited to statutes. 18 HI Stat. 281-17; NV Stat. 244.350; WI Stat 125.25. 19 For further discussion, see Mosher (2001), supra n. 10. 20 N.Y. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Law 2. 21 N.Y. ABC Law 30-43, 64, 106. 22 DJL Restaurant Corp. v. City of New York, 96 N.Y.2d 91 (2001) at 96. 23 54 N.Y.2d 465 (1981). 24 Id. at 470-471 25 74 N.Y.2d 761 (1989). 26 191 Misc. 2d 746 (2002). 27 3 Misc. 3d 11 (2003). 28 36 A.D.3d 729 (2007). This case is the subject of a case study in the next section of this report. 29 Campbell et al., supra, n. 2. 30 54 N.Y.2d at 473.
California State Constitution, Article XI, 7; California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 23000 et seq. 32 City of Oakland v. Superior Court. (1996) 45 Cal.App. 4th 740, 764 citing California Restaurant Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 405, 411. 33 Id.; for discussion, see Mosher, J., Cannon, C., & Treffers, R. (2009). Reducing community problems associated with alcohol sales: The case of deemed approved ordinances in California. Oxnard, CA: Ventura County Behavioral Health Department. Available at: http://www.venturacountylimits.org/resources/article/B881CB/reducing-community-alcoholproblems-associated-with-alcohol-sales-the-case-of-deemed-approved-ordinances-in-california. Accessed March 20, 2011. 34 Floresta v. City Council of the City of San Leandro, 190 Cal.App.2d 599 at 605. 35 De Jesus at 469. 36 96 N.Y.2d 91 (2001). 37 Id. at 96-97. 38 DJL at 97 citing Incorporated Vil. of Nyack v. Daytop Vil., 78 N.Y.2d 500. 39 DJL at 97. 40 Id. 41 DJL at 98 42 New York Department of Health (2003). Strengthening New York's Public System for the 21st Century, Appendix D. Report of the Public Health Infrastructure Working Group to the Public Health Council. Albany, NY: Department of Health. Available at: http://www.health.state.ny.us/press/reports/century/phc_appd.htm. Accessed March 20, 2011. 43 Copquin, C.G. (2007). The neighborhoods of Queens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 44 Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009 45 Black, D.A. & Sanders, S.G. (2004). Labor market performance, poverty, and income inequality in Appalachia. Demographic and Socioeconomic Change in Appalachia. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. 46 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2009). County-level poverty rates for New York. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/povertyrates/PovListpct.asp?st=NY&view=Percent&longname=New%20York. Accessed March 20, 2011. 47 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010). CDC Vital Signs: Binge Drinking. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/BingeDrinking/. Accessed April 20, 2011.; New York State Office of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Services (n.d.). Prevention risk indicator services monitoring system for alcohol and substance abuse, 2005 Risk Profile for Nassau County. Available at: http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/hps/datamart/2005_PRISMS_Profiles/Nassau.pdf (accessed March 29, 2011). 48 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey data. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009. 49 Albin, S. (2003). A fill-up, a 6-Pack and a toy truck. The New York Times, 2(L), October 19, 2003; Williams, L. (2005). Gas station wins brew-ha-ha; Town's bid to ban sale of liquor nixed. New York Daily News, June 1, 2005. 50 Albin, supra n. 40. 51 Id. 52 Id. 53 Id. 54 36 A.D.3d 729 (2007). See discussion, previous section. 55 Albin, supra n. 49. 56 Vining, personal communication, March 2, 2011. 57 Prehn, personal communication, March 5, 2011. 58 Lane, S., Keefe, R. H., Rubinstein, R., Levandowski, B. A., Webster, N., Cibula, D. A., et al. (2008). Structural violence, urban retail food markets, and low birth weight. Health & Place, 14(3), 415-423. 59 Prehn, personal communication; Sieh, M. (2003). SUN asks city for audit, licenses - Group questions spending of housing money, seeks licensing of corner stores. Syracuse Post-Standard, B2, May 30, 2003. Key support for the ordinance also came from the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce (Munno, 2006). 60 Syracuse, NY Code of Ordinances, Chapter 49. 61 Syracuse, NY Code of Ordinances, Chapter 49, Article 1, 49-3, 49-4. 62 The LES is bounded by 14th Street on the north, the East River on the east and the south, and Fourth Avenue and the Bowery on the west, extending to Baxter and Pearl Streets and the Brooklyn Bridge south of Canal Street. 63 Ocejo, R.E. (2008). The uses of nightlife disorder: Flexible regulation and the urban nighttime economy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Sheraton Boston and the Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA, July 31, 2008. Available at: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/4/1/4/8/pages241481/p241481-1.php. Accessed March 25, 2011. 64 Id.
The noise is multifactorial, and comes from patrons on the street in front of licensed establishments, in the backyards of licensed establishments, traveling between licensed establishments and emanating from the businesses themselves, as well as from taxis and limousines dropping off and picking up people patronizing these establishments (Community Board No. 3 (n.d.). CB3 restrictions for liquor licenses in certain areas [resolution]. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb3/html/sla/reso_area.shtml. Accessed February 11, 2011. 66 Communications at meeting of SLA subcommittee, February 16, 2011. 67 New York City Mayors Community Affairs Unit (2011). Community boards: Responsibilities. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/cb/responsibility.shtml. Accessed February 23, 2011. 68 New York State Liquor Authority (n.d.). Community board Q & A. Available at: http://www.abc.state.ny.us/system/files/CB_Q-n-A.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2011. 69 The 500-foot law restricts the granting of a new SLA license if the proposed location is within 500 feet of certain other establishments with on-premise liquor licenses. 70 NYCMCAU, supra n. 69. 71 NYSLA, supra n. 59. 72 Stetzer, personal communication. 73 Stetzer, Testimony to Community Board #3 Task Force on SLA Policy 74 These outlets remain in operation as grandfathered noncompliant businesses (Stetzer, personal communication). 75 See, e.g., A01053, A00505, A00583, A00584, A00675, A03467, & S03122 76 Stetzer, personal communication. These comments reflect Ms. Stetzers personal experience and do not represent official positions of the Community Board. 77 NYSLA, supra n. 70 at 2. 78 OToole, C. (2006). In New York, 28 investigators try to watch 27,062 bars - state liquor authority depends on police for tips, but officers often too busy. Syracuse Post-Standard, October 5, 2006, p. A1. 79 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2005). The role of alcohol beverage control agencies in the enforcement and adjudication of alcohol laws. Washington, DC: NHTSA. Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/abcroleweb/images/ABCFinal.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2011. 80 New York State Office of the Comptroller (2005). State liquor authority: Division of alcoholic beverage control. oversight of wholesalers compliance with the alcoholic beverage control law. Report 2005-S-33, p. 10. 81 For a description of the commission, see http://www.lawrevision.state.ny.us/. Accessed March 28, 2011. 82 New York State Law Revision Commission (2009). Report on the alcoholic beverage control law and its administration. Albany NY: NYSLRC, September 30, 2011. Available at: http://www.lawrevision.state.ny.us/FinalReportPartOne.pdf. Accessed March 28, 2011.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.