Seems the number of dry counties in Texas is, um, drying up.
Since late 2003, when changes in state law made it easier to put alcohol on local ballots, there have been 177 elections across the state to legalize some form of alcohol sales. A lopsided 82 percent have passed, according to the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission.
Conversely, no wet areas have voted to go dry.
Today, only 42 of Texas’ 254 counties are completely dry, fewer than half the number in 1975, when there were 87. And each year several more fall from the list. Located mostly in West Texas and the Panhandle, 28 of the state’s dry counties have populations of fewer than 10,000.
Angelina County, with 82,036 residents, is the second-most-populous dry county in the state behind Smith County, population 188,122, and its chief city of Tyler.
“Beer and wine in grocery stores and the possibility of a drink with a restaurant meal is what’s in demand with most Texans,” said Glen Garey, general counsel for the Texas Restaurant Association. “We don’t get much push-back on those options.”
[…]
“Getting on the ballot is everything,” said Oscar Dillahunty, 69, a retired beer distributor who is leading alcohol proponents in Lufkin, a timber and manufacturing hub 120 miles north of Houston. “We’ll have a campaign, but I don’t think it will matter. Our poll shows two-thirds of people here are for this.”
Dillahunty, whose committee has gathered campaign money from an area beer distributor, a grocery chain and Wal-Mart, among others, said sales taxes on at least $15 million worth of alcohol sales a year are being siphoned off by neighboring Nacogdoches and Trinity counties.
“That’s something when we have a sheriff’s department that needs raises,” he said.
Kip Miller, president of Angelina Savings Bank, said, “From a businessman’s standpoint, this is going to make it easier for us to attract restaurants and maybe an upscale grocery store, where you can pick up a bottle of wine and some real Parmesan cheese.”
Then there are proponents such as Sarah Strinden and her husband, Bill, who calls the county’s dry status “silly.”
Bill Strinden, a plastic surgeon, said he has watched Lufkin’s medical community grow from about 40 doctors when he arrived 18 years ago to 150 today.
“You can see tremendous growth here. We have a lot of the same stores they have in Dallas,” he said. “But being a dry county is a throwback to a time when we were a backwater, small Southern town.”
I’m hard pressed to think of a valid non-religious reason to oppose alcohol sales in a county. Restrictions I can understand, and not wanting to bother with legacy rules in certain neighborhoods (such as the Heights) also makes sense, but a wholesale ban on beer and wine? I don’t get it.
I kind of see dry counties as an inefficiency in the market, which quickly gets worked around by the easy proximity of wet counties. You see stuff like this all the time. Back in the early 80s, New York State’s drinking age was 21, but New Jersey’s was 19. It’s very easy to get to New Jersey from much of New York, and any kid who wanted to drink did just that. Similarly, there was a long period where New York’s sales tax was significantly higher than New Jersey’s (8.25 for NY versus 5 for NJ). If you’d visited the Woodbridge Mall back then, you’d have seen quite a few Empire State license plates in its parking lot. I guarantee that the people who least want to see Angelina County change its rules are Nacogdoches and Trinity Counties.
It’s certainly possible that some counties, in particular the smaller ones out in West Texas, will stay dry for the long haul. I can’t imagine that Angelina and Smith will resist the trend, though. I think there’s too many people who expect to be able to buy things like a six pack at the local supermarket or a glass of Chardonnay at a restaurant for it to be viable, and the revenue argument is hard to counter. The folks who oppose alcohol on religious grounds are a distinct minority, and I think they know it.
(The title of this post refers to an Austin Lounge Lizards song, for which you can hear a Windows Media sample here. I daresay they’ll be glad to toss this one on their “made obsolete by future events” pile.)
The valid non-religious argument is that in some rural areas selling alcohol (especially in bars and restaurants) could lead to 30+ miles of drunk driving. I mean, there are lots of places in rural Texas where it takes 20-30 minutes to get from any convenience store to the main house at a ranch/farm. Getting too/from a bar could be even more difficult.
I guess I don’t know if that’s valid, but it is a real non-religious reason why there are some dry counties in rural areas.
I’m hard pressed to think of a valid reason – religious or not – to oppose alcohol sales. Since when do we, supposedly a nation of religous freedom, allow one particular religious group to dictate the actions and beliefs of others?
Catholics don’t get to dictate to me that I can’t eat meat on Friday. Jews don’t get to tell me I can’t eat pork. Christians don’t have the right to tell me where I can buy a beer.
There is a very simple solution to this issue. Don’t like alcohol? Don’t buy it.
… in some rural areas selling alcohol (especially in bars and restaurants) could lead to 30+ miles of drunk driving.
Perhaps, but I’d guess 30+ miles of drunk driving on a rural highway is only about as dangerous as 3 miles of drunk driving in an urban area. Besides, the practical effect of a ban is to increase the potential drunk driving range to 50+ miles; it’s hard to see how that helps any.
Even if I’m wrong, there are less restrictive rules that would thwart drunk driving as well, such as banning liquor by the drink and sales of cold alcoholic beverages in those areas.
Back in the early 80s, New York State’s drinking age was 21, but New Jersey’s was 19.
Oklahoma’s was – get this – 21 for guys, but only 18 for girls! For some reason, the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t think too highly of that idea.
Personally, I always liked the idea of a drinking age of 19. The biggest problem with a drinking age of 18 was that there are a few 18-year-olds in high school, and they would sometimes buy alcohol for underage students; but there was no need to go all the way up to 21 to solve that problem.
The valid non-religious argument is that in some rural areas selling alcohol (especially in bars and restaurants) could lead to 30+ miles of drunk driving.
In East Texas, Jacksonville was dry when I lived there in 1990-1991. What that meant was that all of the kids drove 20+ miles over the Anderson County border to a town that had incorporated to vote itself wet and which had 4 liquor stores and no cops. The Anderson County Sheriffs got out that far, sometimes.
In East Texas, at least, it was much more of a risk and a danger to be dry than it was to be wet.
The problem with being a dry county is that people are going to drive to the next county, if that’s feasible, to do their drinking. Then they’re going to make the long drive home under the influence, like Michael says.
Seems to me it’s far safer to have alcohol available for purchase near where you live, so it’s easier to drink at home.
The city of Cuney isn’t far from Jacksonville. Cherokee County people don’t go to Coffee City, its right there in Cuney.
i wanted to say that Christians are not against drinking alcohol- Jesus made wine. Certain denominations are against alcohol. Just as many enjoy their wine with The Lord’s Supper. I am tired of hearing people say well i am a Christian so i don’t drink. That is incorrect. There are just as many Christians and Christian Churches that do not label drinking a sin. being alcohol free doesn’t make you or the county you live in holier.