Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Liquorlining.


It’s not a coincidence that there is more liquor stores in poorer neighborhoods. They’re there to make a profit. Liquorlining is the practice of encouraging very high density of liquor stores and other alcohol outlets in low income areas. Instead of the denial of services to low income neighborhoods, its a profitable option for service providers to sell in these communities. It could cause the neighborhood to go downhill and is defiantly taking advantage of a situation that causes people to feel somewhat helpless. It is not illegal like redlining though. This issue has led activist and local governments to control the liquor store development. In south central Los Angeles community members fought to prevent the rebuilding of the 200 liquor stores burned down in 1992 by the civil unrest. The concentration of liquor stores in lower income and minority communities works as an impediment to the social and economic liveliness. Various studies have shown a link between liquor density and crime in communities. A study done by the Oakland Police Department demonstrated that criminal behaviors such as assaults and drug trafficking occurs with a frequency in and near liquor stores. Community development plans are ruined because its difficult to interest developers or even city funds in areas plagued by “alcohol blight“. Liquor stores take up retail space and prevent other businesses to attract people. A false assumption is that alcohol is in higher demand by lower income residents. However, drinking patterns have shown that whites and people of higher income drink more frequently and are heavy drinkers than people of lower income. It is not a demand problem. In some suburban areas stores that sell alcohol are ban all together. In more affluent areas liquor is sold in grocery stores, multi-purpose stores while in lower income neighborhoods alcohol is sold in liquor stores that have been related to community problems. The liquor industry is known to support liquor stores through touch times by paying for expenses such as rent. When neighborhoods lose population supermarkets and other businesses leave. The area then loses its diverse economic base and becomes less desirable for residents and retail costumers. The cost of land is then reduced because the demand for residential and commercial land declined. It leaves an open game for marginal users.

No comments:

Post a Comment