#USA #California #San Francisco #Alcohol Justice #AB 342

Can California Bear the Costs of Extending Last Call?

California is grappling with the potential financial ramifications of proposed legislation aimed at extending last call hours in bars to 4 A.M. According to a recent analysis by Alcohol Justice, the costs associated with this measure could surpass $2 billion over the next five years due to increased law enforcement needs, reckless driving incidents, crime rates, and injuries linked to alcohol consumption after hours. The findings challenge the justification behind California Assembly Bill 342, proposed by Assemblymember Matt Haney, a Democrat representing San Francisco.

Context of the Legislation

The proposal seeks to address challenges faced by bar owners in a bid to boost nightlife business in urban areas, particularly in San Francisco. However, the financial burdens projected are a cause for widespread concern among officials and public health advocates alike. Raúl Verdugo, the director of Alcohol Justice, argues that the benefits of extending service hours cater primarily to a limited number of bars while externalizing the costs of alcohol-related damages on the broader community. "California residents have repeatedly voiced their objections to extending bar hours. It's time for the legislature to listen," he noted.

Public Health Concerns

Public health officials are expressing alarm regarding the potential increase in health risks associated with late-night alcohol sales. Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the California Association of Health Officials, emphasized that AB 342 dismisses extensive public health data that links later last calls to a rise in injuries, hospitalization rates, and alcohol-related fatalities. In a time when alcohol-related mortality has surged by 70% in recent years, such concerns could not be more pressing. Managerial and policy decisions should prioritize community health over ephemeral economic gains.

Broad Community Impact

The ramifications of extending alcohol service hours are not confined within city limits; various studies demonstrate that alcohol-related harm often spills over into neighboring communities. A report from Ventura County in 2008 highlighted that impaired drivers can travel distances of up to 40 miles before being stopped. Further analysis shows that counties neighboring areas with extended last call hours report heightened rates of DUI arrests. Similarly, comparisons of alcohol-related accident rates in the Bay Area reveal that collisions are significantly more likely around the cities of Oakland and San Francisco than elsewhere.

Mirroring these sentiments, Miryom Yisrael, Alcohol Justice's operations director, stated, "Legislators often overlook the existence of surrounding residential communities that are adversely affected by nightlife. Many of us live in areas where the ramifications of these decisions can lead to accidents and public disturbances."

Financial Breakdown of Estimated Costs

The financial analysis conducted mirrors a prior study by Meena Subbaraman and William Kerr, which assessed the implications of extending last call hours in Los Angeles. The recent study expanded this investigation statewide, made assumptions about possible adoption rates, and adjusted for inflation. It estimates that if merely 5% of California’s bars and restaurants adopt the extended hours, costs could soar to $376 million annually, contributing to a staggering $2.046 billion over five years. Here’s a breakdown of the annual costs anticipated for key cities:

• - San Francisco: $27.2 million annually; ~$150 million over 5 years
• - Los Angeles: $27.9 million annually; ~$154 million over 5 years
• - San Diego: $22.1 million annually; ~$122 million over 5 years
• - Sacramento: $10.9 million annually; ~$60.4 million over 5 years

As many local governments struggle with budget deficits, the possibility of reallocating these funds away from essential services such as public transport, housing, healthcare, and recovery services poses a severe risk—not just to municipal budgets but also to the quality of life for residents across the state.

Conclusion

Mired in financial troubles, cities across California cannot afford the implications of late-night bar extensions. The notion that extending last call hours into the early morning will benefit the wider community while potentially undermining fiscal stability is misleading. As reiterated by Verdugo, the time has come for the California legislature to reject AB 342 in favor of sensible solutions that safeguard both community health and financial integrity.