I think your article has merit but some of the numbers are skewed. Licenses sell for less than you quote but to agree with you, they are VERY expensive. Too expensive. I assume the tax income for local governments you refer to is the tax from consumption and the gambling. More businesses won’t necessarily increase the number of consumers, it will only dilute the market by spreading around the wealth of income, reducing the income of the existing businesses (popular with socialists and Marxists). But, that’s what free enterprise is all about. Survival should be for the fittest, not be by the design of the government. However, our current administration is headed that way as fast as possible. Maybe you just have to wait and a free license will be coming your way. Most likely, current license holders will be ordered to purchase one for you out of their own pocket. Come to think of it, will you want to be buying health care for thirty employees. State liquor store might spread into state bars and casinos. ‘Lil ain’t gonna like this.

Yes, the more licenses the lower the value. Simple supply and demand. The buyer of a license could purchase one at a lower price but the counter to that is that the current license holder would have less value for something they most likely paid a lot for. Their asset equity would be reduced in value. Those are the people that are opposed to freeing up licenses. Even so, you are right about the protectionism. A license shouldn’t have a value sometimes larger than the value of the contents of the business.

History shows the Kennedy’s got rich because of their sole rights to distribute scotch. The government and favoritism at work on a grander scale than you are discussing.

By having more establishments, because it cost less to start, we could put others out of business. In a capitalistic society, it again breaks down to the free enterprise rules of supply and demand.

Your article needs to be written to bring light to the problem. What is the solution? I sure don’t know but it’s obvious that a million dollar price tag just to get a license to start a business is outrageous. 

I wish I owned a few. We could start a business together but it wouldn’t be fair for me. I’d put up the license but all you’d have to offer would be all the furniture, fixtures, equipment, inventory, skills, administration, operation, overhead and personnel. I would have so much more in the business by providing the license. We’d have to balance that by establishing a 70:30 split.

Still want to open a business? Not with me?

I recently had occasion to get involved in a liquor licensing application.  The archaic, arcane labyrinth of laws are just as Jim Gray portrays the situation.  Even law enforcement agencies are reluctant to become actively involved until after a crime involving alcohol has been committed It is my opinion that the sale of liquor, wine and beer is responsible for more human misery than are the sales of illegal drugs. The abuse of alcohol is responsible for violent crimes against family members, deaths and injury due to driving while intoxicated and the disruption of society in general. Government is complicit in these crimes by its failure to exercise more control over licensing and to increase the penalties for crimes committed where alcohol is involved from sales to consumption.  The public could care less until their lives are affected by crimes committed by someone under the influence of alcohol.

The MTA was key in getting restaurant beer & wine legislation passed and later getting the number of restaurant licenses increased.  They aren’t part of the problem, they are part of the solution.

Liquor is a legal drug.  The State is right in controlling it in an appropriate manner.  Under our current system, an owner has a substantial investment at stake if he is irresponsible.  I think this is much preferrable to the alternative.

I’d be interested to know the quota for restaurant beer & wine license.  Anyone know?

A license to gamble, drink, smoke? What about eating fast foods? Sounds well thought out to me. Kinda like how one must have a driver’s license or a license to own a pistol. I could then have a license to drink and drive while I tote around my .357M on my way to buy pot. Cool!

My ex wife is now on her fifth marriage license. I see how the licensing will work. This is a great idea. If like a marriage license, screw one up, just get another.

Down to earth for a moment. Does anyone really think the more restaurants with liquor licenses will create a larger base of consumers?

How about this one?  Does anyone really think that $6.7 BILLION dollar Olive Garden (Darden Restaurants) can’t afford a liquor license in Kalispell, Mt or anywhere else for that matter???

If they really wanted one, they would find/acquire it just like Famous Dave’s and Hilton Garden recently did.

Another thing on the MTA (Montana Tavern Association) - there aren’t even listed as the top FIFTY lobbyist for Montana in terms of money spent.  In fact, the Montana Athletic Trainers Assoc ranks ahead of them!  Yes, the Montana Athletic Trainers Assoc spends more money than the MTA!!  No wonder personal trainers are so expensive!!

The MTA has influence NOT because of money but because they truly represent over 1700 small businesses in this State.  Legislators know that and appreciate it.

OK, let me clarify some points: The prices for licenses I quoted are from the Missoula area and they are genuine. Secondly, certain people are able to magically get licenses because there are areas of the state that have beverage license councils or advisory boards and if you’re connected you are able to get a magic license approval. Third, the taxes and fees I wrote about are those generated not just from the sale of beverages in the restaurants, but those also generated by the additional businesses that are created or sustained because of the addition of new restaurants with beverage licenses. Fourth, the size of the MTA or the one representing gaming interests has nothing to do with its ability to influence the beverage laws in this state by buying the loyalty of elected representatives in the House and Senate—and from what I can see, the governor and lieutenant governor, too. Fifth, the MTA’s “consent” to allow a lottery for additional licenses a couple of years ago was a joke. Look at the numbers and who was able to buy these additional licenses and who had to forfeit them because they couldn’t get local zoning or financing. Finally, let me repeat: this is cronyism and paternalism at its worst. The system is anti-competitive which is completely incongruous with the American way of life and business. It needs to change. But it won’t as long as your and my representatives are bought and paid for.

the MTA IS the problem….. they don’t want competition and have erected many barriers to entry in the spirits market…....and what we get left with is large, family unfriendly casinos.