A statewide initiative intended for the November ballot in California aims to impose additional taxes on alcoholic beverages, a move which business officials describe as an “over-reach.”
If passed, the initiative would increase existing excise taxes on beer from 11 cents to $6.08 for a six-pack, wine from 4 cents to $5.11 for each 750 milliliter bottle and distilled spirits from 65 cents to $17.57 for each 750 milliliter bottle.
Currently, Washington has the largest alcohol tax of any state-a $26.45 charge for distilled spirits per gallon, or about 3,785 milliliters.
The initiative is projected to increase annual state revenue by between $7 billion and $9 billion, which would fund services for alcohol addiction recovery, job training and enforcement of alcohol-related laws, among others.
“Alcohol is the most prevalent substance used and abused in the state of California,” said Suzi Rupp, spokesperson for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. “The consequences and results of the use of alcohol have economic impacts as well as social, emotional, physical and financial impacts on citizens in the state.”
Those impacts are why Josie Whitney said in an e-mail she decided to co-author the measure.
“Even a few drinks can cause problems,” she said in the e-mail. “DUIs can be the cause of loss of life, crimes, abuse of spouse or family members and even murder.”
But Natalie Kniess, co-founder of the Berkeley Restaurants Alliance and owner of Bistro Liaison, said that though the cause for this tax is well-intentioned, the method is “way out of line.”
“Using such an (exorbitant) tax on consumers, in addition to the food and beverage industry, puts a huge strain on both the public and the business sector,” she said. “This is no time for such drastic measures.”
A minimum of 433,971 signatures is required by Aug. 23 for the initiative to be placed on the ballot.
“A tax like that is clearly designed to discourage alcohol sales,” said Michael Caplan, the city’s economic development manager. “I’m skeptical that it could get enough signatures to even be put on the ballot.”
The measure could harm the bottom line of local distributors who are already impeded by the city’s rigourous application process for alcohol permits.
The city’s quick-service restaurants-defined as those with payment before eating and no table service-are required to hold a public hearing to obtain an alcohol permit for beer and wine sold for on-premise consumption.
But on March 9, the City Council lifted public hearing requirements for quick-service restaurants in parts of Downtown Berkeley.
“When you make a legitimate business wait for over one year to receive their permit because of a hearing process, you impact Berkeley’s economy in a negative way,” Kniess said.