Historically, Bellevue has been a dry town. No neighborhood bars where friends can gather to tip a few frosties and talk over the triumphs or travails of the day. No restaurants where diners may sip a pre-dinner whiskey sour.

For decades, though, proponents of change have attempted to revoke that dry status by proposing referendums that would allow liquor licenses in Bellevue.
This year's election once again puts the issue on the May 17 ballot, with those voters who prefer maintaining the status quo vying against those who feel that it is time to change.

It's called the Local Option in the liquor code, and, as in years past, those on each side of the issue feel passionately about their cause.

NO BARS IN BELLEVUE

Sean Waters, chairman of No Bars in Bellevue, is not a club-wielding Carrie Nation, smashing up bars and raging against the evils of alcohol. Instead, Waters says that Bellevue voters face just one basic issue:

"There is no way to guarantee what type of establishment might end up holding liquor licenses should the referendum pass. The point is, it's like rolling the dice. You don't know what you'll get. It might be a very respectable restaurant, and that would be nice. But [a community] is either wet or it's dry."

Waters also is concerned about the lack of local control in the licensing process.

"The South Side is a perfect example. In 2007 the Pittsburgh City Council tried to limit the number of licenses on the South Side to one for every 50,000 square feet, or so. The ordinance faced a legal challenge and was overturned because it infringed on the power of the state Liquor Control Board. This decision was recently upheld by a state appellate court."

With such problems in mind, Waters said that he prefers to consider the realistic consequences of passage of the referendum rather than the idealistic possibilities.

"It's nice to play the 'what if?' game, speculating about what kind of quality establishments might move in, but the reality is that's not the question on the ballot. The local choice is to allow any kind of establishment, from dive bar to fine dining restaurant. It's just not worth the risk."

"Even if proponents are right and we get two fantastic restaurants, the additional mercantile tax revenue will be minimal and might even be offset by the additional demand on public services. There would, I suppose, be two fewer vacant storefronts, but it is questionable whether two additional restaurants would motivate young professionals and families to purchase homes in Bellevue. I guess it's possible, but not certain. Bellevue's dry status wasn't a factor when my wife and I made our home purchase decision."

Sean and his wife Jennifer moved to Bellevue five years ago, attracted by the affordable housing that was within walking distance to a business district that included a library, a grocery store, a bakery.

"You can't find that in many communities , and we didn't want to live in suburban sprawl."

He said that he became involved in the issue with his cousin, Joe Heffley, and that the No Bars coalition has "…a diverse group of people --Democrats and Republicans -- who have the common goal of defeating the referendum."

"I thought I'd regret not trying to get the message out that the ballot question allows bars in addition to restaurants and provides for minimal local control. The proponents of bringing licenses to Bellevue have painted a rosy picture of the best case scenario where the community can select two ideal establishments. The typical person not involved either way thinks it's just about restaurants. If it were just about restaurants, I wouldn't be involved or concerned. But that's not the case, and that's the problem. If Bellevue votes 'yes,' any type of establishment can come in. The only say that Bellevue has in the matter is 'yes' or 'no' on the referendum. If it passes, it's a gamble of what might come in. It's out of the residents' hands as a municipality. People think that it would only be two licenses, but if there is a pro-licensing council in the future, it could vote more licenses in. It would take a vote of only three council members to transfer more licenses into Bellevue.

Once bars obtain licenses, they must be renewed every two years. The Liquor Control Board [LCB] explains what to do if there is a nuisance bar and Waters said that his group has studied the problems that some communities have had in trying to rid themselves of such bars.

"If you want to see how difficult it is to close a nuisance bar, click the link on our Web site and read about problems people have been having in other parts of the state. It explains how closing a bar can take anywhere from two to four years. Do we want that here? If you look at other suburban communities with licenses, the majority of licenses are held by bars. Why open that Pandora's box? It's not worth going down that path. I simply think that we are taking the common sense position."

The Web site to which he refers may be accessed at www.nobarsinbellevue.org

"I try to avoid all of the peripheral topics and just focus on the main issue: Would bars really bring people to live, worship, shop in Bellevue? We just want to get facts out to the community. Maybe it will still pass, but the people will know the truth. The bottom line is that voting 'no' is the only way to ensure with 100 percent certainty that there will be no nuisance bars in Bellevue."

ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES IN BELLEVUE
No one can doubt Mark Helbling's loyalty and love for Bellevue, the community where he has lived for 40 years and where he has served on council for 10 years.

When he looks down Lincoln Avenue, though, he sees a town growing tired, a town that he believes could use a few nudges into modernity to give it some new life. One of those nudges would be the repeal of Bellevue's "dry law" that denies liquor licenses to be issued within the borough.

Emphasizing that he was speaking and acting as a citizen, not as a council member, Helbling came straight to the point. "To me, it's about economic development."

He said that over the years, he has "…attended art and music events where people followed the BYOB rule and everything was fine. We have good, responsible people, but if we could sell alcoholic beverages, it would make the events better. Lots of people want to come out and enjoy the evening. Looking at that, and looking at other towns and what makes them succeed, I realized that we're missing a few pieces."

While presenting his argument for why residents should approve the referendum that would allow liquor licenses in Bellevue establishments, Helbling never suggested that the rule change would provide a panacea for the borough's problems. He said, however, that he did believe that, at least in part, it would serve to stanch the flow of money and younger residents from the area.

"In addition to my job as a remodeling contractor, I'm a landlord. I have good, quality tenants. Young professionals like Bellevue, but they spend a lot of money out of this town. They tell me they'd like to spend their time here, but today's young homebuyers want to be able to walk to entertainment. And so they rent here, but usually they buy elsewhere."

Helbling referred to some of the findings of the Allegheny Together program which, according to its Web site "…stresses community organization and data-driven planning as a way to direct public investment, spur private investment and revitalize our communities." In a 2010 study, that organization concluded, "We also think it is worth exploring relaxing the prohibition of alcohol in the Borough. This could help boost the already healthy local restaurant scene and, in its own way, help fill the entertainment gap…We believe that the business district is missing opportunities to bring in new customers by not having more entertainment options."

Arguing that development and sustainability are needed for Bellevue to become a successful town now and in the future, Helbling said, "The ability for quality establishments to sell alcohol would create more options and attract more people to the business district. A more vibrant and interesting main street attracts new businesses and strengthens the businesses we already have."

Helbling said that he respects the no-bars faction, but he feels that their emphasis on fear is not patterned on statistics of successful towns that have gone from being dry to allowing licenses. He refers to Slippery Rock, whose residents voted in 2001 to allow restaurants with liquor licenses. Since then, he said, the town has added several new businesses.

"I look at other communities that are similar to ours -- Regent Square, Sewickley. We have a lot of good people, just like they do. Why do they [opponents to the referendum] think we're going to attract all bad people?"

He believes that any negatives resulting from passing the referendum would be minimal. "People, of course, fear a dive or nuisance bar and we understand that concern. However, a business opening with a license spends a fortune. It opens to be successful, not to create something that's going to be a negative in the community. I don't know that there are more negatives than there are with BYOB, which already exists [in Bellevue]. Right now, people could walk into a restaurant with a case of beer and drink all night long. And people should remember that we have good law enforcement and there are nuisance laws that are very helpful to all communities."

Should the referendum pass, he does not fear a large growth in the number of licenses. "The quota for our population is two licenses. After that, council could approve or deny additional applications, but even if council would approve a new one, it still would have to go to the LCB for approval and they are very strict. An application has to go through LCB scrutiny, so there is not an automatic addition of licenses."
In the end, it all comes down to Helbling's vision for his hometown.

"We don't want to be the people who turned the town upside down and ruined the place.
I'm in this to see prosperity."

Additional pro-referendum information may be accessed at www.bellevuereferendum.com