At a recent Council retreat, the mayor made a very perceptive statement. He said, “All too often we work on what is urgent, not what is important.”  How true. Let me also offer a corollary:  government often gets itself busy with solving the wrong problem.  

         A recent request by one of the Walgreen’s outlets in Springfield to be granted a liquor license has kicked off a bit of a furor.  It seems that the Walgreen’s store in question is located within 200 feet of an elementary school and that means that state law requires a decision by City Council on whether to issue the liquor license.

         A number of years ago, the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives decided that municipalities should be required enact an ordinance preventing the sale of beer and wine near elementary schools.  In their infinite wisdom, the state folks said that the cities and towns had to decide on an appropriate distance between 100 and 300 feet. Springfield apparently just split the difference and enacted an ordinance that stated 200 feet.

         But, amidst all the emotional hand-wringing, breast-beating, and wailing, aren’t we missing something?  What is the real problem that we’re trying to solve? The real problem is that we want to keep our elementary students safe. 

But what is magic about 100 feet? 200 feet? Or even 300 feet?  How did the state folks arrive at that number?  Was there some scientific study that showed young people were less likely to become alcoholic if they were sheltered by a buffer of at least 100 feet during their elementary years?  Or did some bureaucrat somewhere decide that the width of an average home lot would be just the right amount of space to protect our younger citizens?  And protect them from what?  A sealed bottle or can?  No one can truly believe that a third grader will walk to Walgreen’s and be sold a six-pack of beer.

         No, the state law—and the resulting local ordinance—was probably one of those “feel good” laws that gets passed so someone could campaign that they were “protecting kids.”

         Apparently, we—as a society—have decided that young fifth graders sitting in an elementary classroom, in an in loco parentis situation, within 197 feet of a drugstore on the corner, are more at risk than if they are taken to Hammons Field for a ball game and the person sitting next to them is drinking a beer.  Where is the logic in that?  And is the next step an outright ban on children being taken into grocery stores where beer and wine is sold?  How about into convenience stores?

         According to Walgreen’s, their request for the liquor license was brought about by customer request, customers asking for the store to sell—not liquor by the drink or even liquor by the bottle—but wine and beer. Keep in mind that this store has been an integral part of the neighborhood for over 13 years.

         What keeps kids safe is a loving, supportive framework at home along with a firm foundation in ethics and behavior—not some ordinance that doesn’t do anything more substantive than give politicians a campaign sound byte.

         Instead of our state politicians asking, “what more can we do for you?”, why don’t they ask “what less can we do?”  Yeah, I know.  I’m a dreamer, but-nevertheless-an arbitrary distance of 100 or 200 or 300 feet is a bit of a political pipedream itself.