Stop-and-go shops win a legal battle over alcohol sales

For "stop-and-go" owners like Adam Xu, last week's state court decision to overturn a law tightly regulating their businesses represented much more than an end to legislation that threatened their livelihood for six years.

"We're from communist countries [where] we believe the state government will help the local government . . . [and] there's no way we can win it," explained Xu, chairman of the Asian American Licensed Beverage Association of Philadelphia.

"Six years later, that's a real good feeling, this country telling us that the U.S.A. is the place we should stay."

Commonwealth Court last Monday overturned the 2006 law that created hurdles for the shops to sell takeout beer and malt liquor, ruling it unconstitutional.

The most recent version of the law required shops to reapply for off-premises alcohol-sales permits from the city every two years, on top of their regular liquor licenses. That version was passed in November 2006 after Common Pleas Court ruled the July 2005 iteration unconstitutional.

In July 2007, the city created a three-person Malt and Brewed Beverage Hearing Board, appointed by the mayor and overseen by the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections, to review stop-and-go shops' off-premises sales-permit applications.

Xu said that he suspects the city might appeal the court's decision. He plans to discuss with his members whether to file this year's permit applications as a precaution.

"They've been fighting us all the way for the past six years, so I won't be surprised. Even though they know there's almost zero chance, they probably will take the chance anyway and file an appeal," Xu said. "I hope they don't, for numerous reasons."

Mark McDonald, spokesman for Mayor Nutter, said he is uncertain whether the city will appeal. "We'll take a look at it, but it's just too soon to say what our response might be," he said.

Xu said the law overturned last week was similar to the 2005 provision that it replaced. The major difference between the two was that, under the original version, City Council was charged with reviewing the stop-and-go applications, rather than the malt-beverage board.

"Everybody wants to know [whether] there will be another version of this that pops out," he said. "Everybody wants to know what's next."

He said that the 2005 decision put 127 association members' stores at risk of closing but that the court's ruling to overturn the latest law gave him and other association members confidence.