THERE'S NO PLEASING TAVERN LEAGUE

Three state legislators and some other well-meaning folks learned a
valuable lesson from Wisconsin's barkeepers this week -- namely, you need
to know when you've had enough.

That limit should have been reached Tuesday when the influential Tavern
League of Wisconsin arrogantly rejected a compromise offered by three
Waukesha County legislators to resolve a bitter controversy over the new
tavern licensing law.

This terrible law - for which the Tavern League lobbied mightily - requires
municipalities to charge a $10,000 fee for a new tavern license, compared
to a $500 fee for an existing license. The point of the law is to increase
the value of existing bars by making their purchase more attractive to
would-be tavern owners than the purchase of a new license. One effect of
the law, of course, is to discourage new competition.

The compromise - drafted by Assembly Majority Leader Steven Foti
(R-Oconomowoc), Rep. Frank Urban (R-Brookfield) and Sen. Margaret Farrow
(R-Elm Grove) - was certainly reasonable. Communities would have been
allowed to use their own discretion to set fees for liquor licenses
anywhere from $500 to $10,000.

The Alliance of Cities and the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, both of
which strongly oppose the new law, backed the compromise. But that wasn't
good enough for officials of the Tavern League, who made it clear by their
actions that they're really not interested in a compromise at all, despite
earlier comments to that effect.

By discouraging competition, the new statute is classic fence-me-in
legislation. If the state is going to take drastic steps to protect one
type of small business, why not do the same for others -- small groceries
or drugstores, for instance? Where would the line be drawn? Obviously, the
state should not be traveling down that perilous road.

Pete Madland, president of the Tavern League, wants the new law left in
place for one year before legislators consider changing it. That's fine for
him and his members, but what about municipal officials throughout the
state who complain about the law's impediment to new business development?
Should they live with a bad law for another year just because it suits the
Tavern League?

The answer for lawmakers should be obvious: It's high time to just say no.