ShareThis Page
Business owners oppose city drink tax |

Business owners oppose city drink tax

| Friday, January 24, 2003 12:00 p.m

Bar and restaurant owners promised Thursday to fight Mayor Tom Murphy’s proposed 10 percent drink tax and half-percent payroll tax.

Murphy has proposed the new taxes to help balance the city’s 2003 budget.

Bar and restaurant owners, at a meeting hosted by the South Side Chamber of Commerce, complained the weak economy already has cut into their business. They said they should be the last — not the first — recourse to help bail out the city. Some argued the drink tax would cause customers to flee to places outside the city, such as Green Tree or Homestead.

About 60 people attended the meeting at the South Side’s Sokol Club. The business owners haven’t yet finalized their plan to oppose the taxes, which need approval by the Legislature.

“This would strangle our industry,” said Kevin Joyce, who runs the Carlton Restaurant in One Mellon Bank Center. “It’ll put a lot of restaurants out of business.”

Revenue from the proposed taxes are included in the city’s 2003 operating budget. The budget, approved by city council, includes $24 million from a 0.5 percent payroll tax and $5 million from the drink tax. Murphy needs to have the taxes in place by July 1 to keep the city’s budget balanced.

The taxes are part of a larger plan that would be good for bars and restaurants, said Craig Kwiecinski, spokesman for Murphy.

In exchange for the drink and payroll taxes, Murphy would reduce so-called nuisance taxes — real estate, business privilege, and mercantile taxes — in 2004, Kwiecinski said.

“The mayor’s plan will help to bring about fairness to our tax structure,” he said. “The mayor’s plan will help to create a level playing field.”

Also opposed to the taxes are state Sen. Jack Wagner, a Beechview Democrat; city Controller Tom Flaherty; state Rep. Harry Readshaw, a Carrick Democrat; and city Councilman Alan Hertzberg.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.