Proponents of lifting Minnesota's ban on Sunday liquor sales believe their time has finally arrived, as public opinion polls have tilted in their favor and more legislators and newspaper editorials show a willingness to lampoon one of the state's oldest "blue laws."

 

Call us old fashioned, but we believe allowing Sunday sales would be a bad move, particularly for cities, such as Litchfield, which depend on municipal liquor stores to partly fund government operations.  

 

As a whole, these entities oppose lifting the ban because it would lead to higher costs and likely dent profits.  

 

With Sunday sales, Litchfield and other municipalities might have to reduce the dollar amounts that their liquor stores return to municipal coffers.

 

Proponents of lifting the ban often ignore this side of the Sunday sales equation because discussing it would complicate their message.  

 

They focus on a single talking point: convenience.  

 

In making Sunday sales only a question of convenience, their proposal seems harmless.  

 

Why not be able to run out and grab a six-pack 10 minutes before the Vikings kickoff?  

 

While the idea itself is simple, politics is rarely so simple, especially when alcohol is involved.

 

The complicating factor is the existence of municipal liquor stores and their ability to act as revenue generators for cash-strapped cities, like Litchfield.  

 

Not every municipal liquor store turns a sizable profit, but Litchfield is blessed with a well-run operation, and it currently transfers $59,000 each year to the city.

 

For many years, a portion of liquor store profits has gone to help pay for Litchfield Civic Arena operations.  

 

Without that money, the Civic Arena would need to balance its budget some other way.

 

Libertarian-minded legislators might scoff at the concept of municipal liquor stores and relying on them to fund government operations.  

 

These legislators believe government has no business telling people when they can and can't buy liquor - period.  

 

Let free markets determine society's winners and losers, they say.

 

It would be interesting to know what other alcohol-related policies exist in this fantasy world of our libertarian friends.  

 

Are these same free market thinkers ready to abolish the 21-year-old drinking age?  

 

Would they advocate for repealing drinking-and-driving laws?  

 

Perhaps, fans of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" might argue bartenders should be allowed to sell to young and old alike.

 

Like it or not, alcohol is one of the world's most heavily regulated substances.  

 

Proponents of Sunday liquor sales are being disingenuous when they claim to have free markets at heart.

 

A free market in alcohol has never, and probably will never, exist.  

 

While claiming to espouse American-as-apple-pie ideals, Sunday sales advocates, at the end of the day, are driven mainly by self-interest.

 

It's no coincidence that many Sunday sales proponents live or operate liquor stores in border communities.  

 

These folks complain they lose business to cities in neighboring states where you can buy liquor on Sundays.  

 

We admit these communities are hurt to some degree under the current law, but to advocate for border communities' self-interest at the expense of Litchfield's self-interest is to play Litchfield as the fool.  

 

It's all too easy to bash a law when your town or district alone would benefit from repealing it.

 

Unlike some larger metro areas and border towns, Litchfield has something to lose by repealing this "blue law."  

 

We don't claim that Litchfield Liquor's profits would evaporate entirely, but even a small decline in profits could hurt the city's ability to maintain the Civic Arena, which is in need of major upgrades as it stands.  

 

If Litchfield Liquor is forced to reduce the $59,000 it gives to the Civic Arena, one of three things must happen.  

 

The city must cut expenses at the arena, taxpayers must make up the difference in lost revenue, or fees paid by Civic Arena users, such as hockey players, would need to rise.

 

Is it worth contemplating property tax or fee increases just so football fans, among other customers, can make a beer run before kickoff and again at halftime?  

 

At a time when rural areas are routinely short on funds, it seems foolish to jeopardize this dependable source of income.

 

We understand that society has changed and Sundays are now a major shopping day.  

 

But at the same time, communities need to understand Sunday sales is not only a question of customer convenience.  

 

For better or worse, alcohol sales and city budgets are closely intertwined, and disrupting that relationship could easily backfire on local taxpayers.