New proposal could push closing time to 4 a.m.
Tweet
Students wishing to spend their nights as bar stars will have two extra hours to do so if a recent proposal by Gov. Jennifer Granholm is passed into state law.
Granholm made an announcement last week proposing bars be permitted to stay open until 4 a.m., a two hour extension on the current 2 a.m. closing time, in an effort to generate more money for the state.
The proposal also would allow bars to open earlier Sunday mornings. Currently, bars cannot begin serving alcohol until noon Sunday.
Under the proposal, they could begin serving as soon as they open.
Bar owners who wish to extend hours would pay double the standard liquor license fee.
Megan Brown, a spokeswoman for Granholm, said preliminary figures estimate revenue from all liquor licenses would be $24.1 million statewide if the proposal is accepted.
But for East Lansing police, longer bar hours would mean more patrols and more money spent to pay officers, East Lansing police Chief Tom Wibert said.
“On weekends, we would increase our overtime pay,” Wibert said. “We generally put out extra foot patrols on bar nights.”
Wibert said making liquor available Sunday mornings probably wouldn’t affect police, but the extended bar hours could pose a problem of increased late night crime.
“Not many good things happen between 2 and 4 a.m.,” he said.
Some local bar owners said although it would be nice to keep bars open later, they find current hours to be sufficient and would rather push for Sunday morning sales.
“We’ve all come to the conclusion that all of us would rather … open earlier on Sunday,” said Joe Bell, owner of The Peanut Barrel Restaurant, 521 E. Grand River Ave. “We don’t really care about after 2 a.m. except for one or two of us. … (2 a.m.) is plenty late enough.”
Students likely would benefit most from later bar hours, since they make up a large portion of the city’s night owls, said Charles Atkin, chairman of MSU’s Department of Communication and a health communications expert.
Caroline Moon, a premedical freshman who works at a local bar, said she opposes the measure because it wouldn’t generate much extra revenue for bars.
“As the night goes on, less and less people come (in), and you just have to stay,” Moon said.
“You’re staying there for $2.65 to just stand around, even when it’s just open until 2.”
Atkin said an alternative way for the state to increase revenue would be raising taxes on alcohol, which also could reduce problematic drinking.
“The interesting question is, ‘What are the implications for problem drinking — is that the safest way to raise money?’” Atkin said.
Possibly related:
More in City:
- Competition over Mich. increases for upcoming presidential election
- Family Aquatic Center to open for Memorial Day weekend
- Construction on E.L. car charging stations coming soon
- Council allows more time for City Center II lenders to be revealed
- Lansing celebrates Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month at Capitol

Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Sparty x2
(02/25/09 10:06am)Report
This is the most stupid idea I’ve heard, for all the reasons listed in the article and then some. Hey Gov., lets drink our troubles away! Sure, you will make some money, but you potentially hurt a whole lot of people. Brillient idea Gov.
BintheD
(02/25/09 11:14am)Report
I have a hard enough time staying out on Thursdays past 11:30pm, let alone 4am!!!
Oh how I miss Burgeramma :o)
ummm...ok
(02/25/09 12:46pm)Report
I agree with Sparty x2, and the people quoted in the article…this is a ridiculous idea, and I sort of doubt too many bars would bother paying that much more money, to pay employees to stay later, when, in reality, people are NOT going to buy that many more drinks between 2 and 4 am. And the people that are buying drinks that late probably need to be done by then anyway, because they are probably generally the people who have been there all night already. Allowing them to serve alcohol on Sunday mornings is fine, but 4am? really? time to go write a letter to the state…
BJMM
(02/25/09 1:16pm)Report
Just because it wouldn’t be popular in THIS town doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be popular in OTHER towns.
Are you all actually against this for some reason, other than just to fight “the man”? Creating revenue for the state… that’s a good idea. Liquor licenses would cost double, if bar owners actually want to do it. It’s not like they’re being forced.
Girl
(02/25/09 1:42pm)Report
I think it’s a good idea. Very few bars are going to want to stay open until 4am and they well make a lot of money because of it. If everyone stayed open that late then yeah I see the point about making less money at that time, but I doubt that’s going to happen.
Cameron
(02/25/09 4:26pm)Report
I agree with the intention of this bill but I think it will put more stress on law enforcement which, as the article states, could increase costs for many local governments and even the state government. Again as it has already been stated, I do not believe many bars will want to stay open longer only to have to pay double the license fee. BJMM, even if this initiative is popular in other cities or towns the other ones it would probably affect would be college towns. I think the better option is to do away with the restrictions of buying alcohol on Sunday mornings. Law enforcement would not be affected and it can still generate revenue. It would also not harm businesses that may pay double on their license fees depending on whether or not they make that choice.