Small liquor bottle ban would hurt underserved Kansas City neighborhoods | Opinion

Living in a community that is safe and healthy is a priority we all share. We care about our neighbors and want to create an environment where residents can thrive — which must include reducing public nuisance and crime in vulnerable corridors of our city.

As a local store owner and operator, I pride myself on maintaining a place where my customers can rely on me for their everyday needs. However, the proposed Retail Alcohol Impact Area Ordinance currently before city officials misses the reality of what this means for small businesses and the families we serve. While the ordinance aims to address quality-of-life concerns, a new independent impact assessment warns that the collateral damage from the proposal could trigger significant unintended economic and social consequences. Simply put: Kansas City cannot achieve safety by targeting the retail infrastructure that provides food, medicine and jobs to underserved communities.

The proposed ordinance, which would ban alcohol sold in certain smaller size containers such as single-serving bottles, fails to account for the neighborhood retail ecosystem. Many convenience stores operate on thin margins. For them, banning specific products isn’t just a minor adjustment, but a threat to their survival. According to the impact analysis, the loss of sales from this ordinance could lead to a spiral of revenue declines and permanent closures. The numbers tell the story: an estimated $130 million in total annual economic losses, more than 1,000 jobs lost and roughly $6.5 million in reduced annual tax revenues should this ordinance pass. These are dollars that should be spent implementing programs that uplift our communities, not stripped away from the local economy.

I want to be clear: This ordinance is about more than just alcohol. There are unintended consequences to implementing a ban, consequences that stretch beyond the ability to purchase mini liquor bottles and a single serving of beer.

For starters, closing my business would mean putting my employees out of jobs and eliminating the income they rely on to support their families. My employees and their families are members of our neighborhood, too, yet their well-being is not taken into account with this ordinance. In a time of such financial uncertainty, this city wants to enact an ordinance that could put more than 1,000 people out of jobs? It’s not right.

Further, the stores most vulnerable to closure are small neighborhood markets in areas already described as food deserts, where full-service grocery stores are already limited or nonexistent. The analysis projects that about 33 stores are projected to be at risk of closure over the next two years.

Empty storefronts attract crime

For many Kansas Citians — particularly older adults and those without reliable transportation — these stores are often the only source within walking distance for bread, milk and even medicine. Losing these stores not only disrupts the bottom line of small businesses, but shuts out vital resources for the community. By inadvertently creating storefront vacancies, the city risks worsening chronic health disparities and cutting off essential community infrastructure.

Ironically, the very ordinance intended to stabilize neighborhoods may actually undermine public safety. Research consistently shows that commercial vacancies attract crime. Shuttering dozens of businesses creates dead zones with less foot traffic and less natural surveillance, which then creates corridors that are more susceptible to the illicit activity the city is trying to stop.

These effects would disproportionately impact my business, my employees and my neighborhood because the proposed ordinance singles out specific communities in our city. Why does my business get hit with a ban, causing my employees and regular customers to suffer, while competitors down the street continue with business as usual?

There are smarter solutions that prioritize public health and safety without creating adverse consequences for Kansas Citians. We should be focusing on solutions such as regular neighborhood cleanups, increased waste receptacles, industry-led public education and clearer standards of stewardship. I believe that safety can be achieved without harming local businesses, but it requires shifting the focus from prohibition to partnership and collaboration.

I stand ready, alongside my industry peers, to collaborate with the City Council to find a compromise that works for businesses and keeps our communities safe. I urge council members to look closely at the data and encourage them to vote no on this ordinance. True neighborhood revitalization requires keeping the lights on and the shelves stocked. In Kansas City, you shouldn’t have to choose between a safe street and a place to buy your groceries.

Kay White is the owner of a convenience store in Kansas City.