New bill would force NY towns to scrap Prohibition-era rules banning booze sales that they never repealed

Booze would finally flow freely in six upstate towns that never repealed Prohibition-era rules banning the sale of alcohol, under a new bill that some locals say is hard to swallow.

The proposed legislation strikes down a 1934 law that allowed communities  — including the tiny towns of Caneadea, Clymer and Orwell — to stay dry.

Scrapping the ban would boost business, according to the bill’s sponsor Sen. James Skoufis (D- Hudson Valley).

But not everyone is toasting the idea.

Even some town leaders saying there’s no clear reason to kick them off the wagon.

“The more Democrats can talk about meaningless issues like adultery and prohibition, the less they have to talk about the real issues that they have failed our state on, like crime, affordability and migrants,” Sen. George Borrello (R-Chautauqua) told the Post.

“If you really would like to do something to help the economies of small towns, there are certainly more things to do than overrule their local rules.”

Borrello, who owns several restaurants, agreed the liquor laws are antiquated but said there’s no pressing need for the bill.

“If there is someone who wanted to open up a brewery or distillery or a gas station or a grocery store I think these towns would consider it,” he said.

The bill officially “end[s] the local option of towns and cities to prohibit the sale of alcohol” in towns including Lapeer, Berkshire and Fremont — and could be up for a Senate vote after advancing out of a committee last week.

Skoufis said lifting the century-old drinking ban is needed because residents leave town to spend money on food and drinks.

3

“Prohibition ended in 1933—for most of us. It’s time for the hold-out towns in New York to join us in the 21st century,” Skoufis told The Post.

“The dry towns in New York State often held referendums to determine their alcohol-free status decades ago and haven’t checked in since to see if this is still the voice of the people,” he said. “This is good for local businesses, good for local economies, and good for locals.”

But some of those locals said they’re perfectly capable of making that call themselves.

“It gets frustrating when the state hands down mandates, it takes more and more control away from the locals,” said Philip Stockin, Caneadea’s deputy town supervisor.

Stockin said he wants to keep the town dry because drinking is a major public health problem.

3

Jeffrey Graham, a former town councilmember from Orwell, said the area’s booze-less status has little impact on its economy.

“You might have a friend or someone you know make a joke about it, but it’s really not a big deal,” Graham said.

If the bill makes it through the Senate, it faces stiff opposition in the Assembly where lawmakers are less keen to strip powers away from local officials.

“I don’t thinking I’m making a bold prediction by saying it won’t advance from the Assembly committee,” one Albany insider told The Post.

None of the dry towns have populations larger than 2,000 residents, so the change wouldn’t be a significant sales tax boost for the state, insiders said.

The bill comes weeks after a push to repeal another antiquated law — this one banning adultery in the state — was successfully passed by the legislature. It’s now awaiting Gov. Hochul’s signature.

3

In New York, prohibition lasted from 1920 to 1933, even as most Big Apple residents opposed it, according to historians.

Supporters insisted it would decrease crime and  improve health and “morality” — but the so-called “noble experiment” is thought to be one of lawmaking’s biggest flops.

Mob-controlled alcohol sales soon replaced legitimate tax-generating alcohol businesses and violence skyrocketed.

With Post wires