Jun 18, 2017 3 min read

An interesting by-product of the preliminary planning being done for Monessen’s large Westgate urban renewal project is the information that within the project area there are 19 licensed liquor-dispensing places.

Since under present statutes, the Monessen Redevelopment Authority is not permitted to consider the value of these licenses in determining the acquisition prices of the real estate involved, it is obvious that both the authority and the owners of the liquor licenses have a problem, not to say a headache.

The biggest problem, however, is that of a community — any community — which has too many booze joints. A story in The Valley Independent last Saturday which reported the difficulty with the Westgate liquor licenses also reported that, within the City of Monessen, there are presently no fewer than 73 liquor licenses.

The rule of thumb in the present state law is that there should be no more than one licensed drinking place for each 1,500 population.

By that standard, which seems reasonable, Monessen, with a population of about 18,000, should have about 12 -not 73 — licensed establishments of all kinds — public taverns, clubs and hotels.

While we do not have at hand the current figures for other mid-Mon Valley towns, it is quite likely that Monessen’s predicament is not unique. And since all of the larger communities are contemplating urban renewal programs, how the liquor license problem is dealt with in Westgate will probably be followed with considerable interest throughout the Valley.

Without going into the moral implications of the matter at all, although certainly there are such, and considering only the economic and sociological aspects, it is evident to us that public policy should be designed to reduce the number of liquor licenses.

Whatever legal or other methods can be devised to do this deserve public support.

There is a clear relationship in a given city or neighborhood between the incidence of bars and a number of serious community problems. Police, social workers, housing inspectors and public health officials can all cite chapter and verse on this, we feel sure. Where there are too many bars, the liquor control laws are apt not to be enforced adequately. This seems to breed laxity in law enforcement generally. Good rental housing is almost never to be found in such neighborhoods. And you can go on from there.

We do not mean to over-simplify. The demon rum is not the cause of everything that is wrong in a neighborhood. It may, in fact, be as much of an effect as it is a cause.

But the relationship is there, and it ought to be a matter for earnest concern on the part of public bodies which are planning the expenditure of very large sums of public money to rehabilitate their communities.

How 73 liquor licenses came to be issued in a little  Pennsylvania city of 18,000 population is a matter of historical interest. It probably happened because nobody was paying much attention.

Now we must pay some attention. It would be nonsense to spend ten cents trying to upgrade the environment of a city which has six times as many places selling liquor as the state legislature considers prudent.