Introduced by Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D) on February 3, 2005, to authorize the issuance of “redevelopment project area liquor licenses” over and above a particular city’s liquor license quota if the city meets certain redevelopment capital investment thresholds. The license fee would be $20,000 (which is less that what it costs in many places to purchase a license from a current licensee, given the quota system).
Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on February 3, 2005.
Reported in the Senate on September 19, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Amendment offered in the Senate on November 9, 2006, to make the conditions for qualifying for the extra liquor licenses slightly less stringent for a particular municipality in southeast Michigan. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on November 9, 2006.
Referred to the House Regulatory Reform Committee on November 14, 2006.
Reported in the House on November 28, 2006, with the recommendation that the amendment be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Amendment offered in the House on December 7, 2006, to clarify the application of the fee for the liquor licenses authorized by the bill. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 7, 2006.
Passed in the House (98 to 8) on December 13, 2006, to authorize the issuance of “redevelopment project area liquor licenses” over and above a particular city’s liquor license quota if the city meets certain redevelopment capital investment thresholds. The license fee would be $20,000 (which is less that what it costs in many places to purchase a license from a current licensee, given the quota system). [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on December 13, 2006.
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on December 14, 2006, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 28, 2006.
2) every time somebody says [by Anonymous Citizen on November 11, 2006] "gimme a beer" the state makes money.
i would think that the state would (since they are in the business of making money off of the sale of alcohol) would be promoting that business as hard as they could.