At the Aug. 5 Columbia County Board of Commissioners meeting, the room was noticeably fuller than usual. Curious, I asked another attendee what was going on. He told me the buzz was over a proposed liquor store at 102 S Old Belair Road.
The motion to allow the store passed in a 3-2 split, which is rare for this commission. Nearby residents also voiced concerns earlier at the July 17 Planning Commission meeting, reflecting an ongoing debate about community values and growth in Columbia County. While I don’t live in the neighborhood, the arguments raised on both sides struck me as worthy of a deeper look. Who doesn’t love a good community debate?
Some nearby residents cited several concerns, such as tree removal, which would increase noise from Columbia Road traffic as well as decrease privacy. There was also the frequent concern of an increase in traffic whenever development is proposed. It should be noted that this would be an issue with any development in this location, and that the property has been zoned C-2 (General Commercial) and C-C (Community Commercial) for at least 25 years.
The most sensitive concern involved crime. Some residents argued that a liquor store would bring an increase in criminal activity. Research on liquor stores and crime rates is complex. Many studies link a high concentration of liquor stores in urban areas with an increase in crime.
It is interesting to note a study in Baltimore that actually linked liquor stores with a higher increase in violent crime than the presence of bars and restaurants that served alcohol onsite. Another study from Baltimore also showed a decrease in crime when a city ordinance passed, curbing the operating hours of liquor stores so that they closed at 10 p.m.
While these studies are interesting and bring data to the debate, Baltimore isn’t Grovetown. We’re not talking about a dense urban area with liquor stores on every corner.
Many residents also complained that the location of the liquor store (intersection of S. Old Belair Road and Columbia Road) would be too close to a nearby church and school building. In 2023, the Commission revised the Columbia County code to add additional restrictions to liquor stores. All liquor stores must be at least 1,000 feet from the following facilities: church building, school building, county park or playground, or an alcohol treatment facility. Further, liquor stores must be located at least one mile away from other liquor stores.
This location meets all of these criteria. The owner’s representative argued that due to the existing codes, there are limited places in Columbia County to place liquor stores.
Former Commissioner Don Skinner also spoke in opposition to the store. He expressed concerns about a nearby school and a “Christian house across the street that fights drug problems.” Then he had to pull what I call the Richmond County card: “There’s a difference in the two counties. This county is admired. I want to keep it that way.” That comment highlights a recurring theme in local debates that I find troubling. Why is Richmond County always dragged into arguments about Columbia County? I’ve lived here long enough to know both counties have their issues. Framing one as “good” and the other as “bad” oversimplifies reality and echoes tired old tropes. If you feel the need to disparage a neighboring county to make your case, your argument is probably on shaky ground to begin with. At the end of the day, the futures of both Columbia and Richmond counties are linked, and I see no benefit to this constant denigration.
Supporters of the liquor store were also present. Russell Wilder, a business owner and soon-to-be member of the Planning Commission, argued in favor of the proposal and vouched for the character of the store’s owner, Malay Patel. He cited the owner’s well-kept Richmond County location and commitment to Columbia County. Grace Welsh, who lives directly behind the proposed site, said that she met with Patel and found him willing to address neighbors’ concerns, such as keeping trees, adding fencing, and working with HOA boards. At the Planning Commission meeting, another community member mentioned that his store in Richmond County was safe and well-lit, which made her feel more comfortable after dark. She contrasted that with an existing liquor store already in operation in Columbia County.
Commissioners Duncan, Couch, and Allen voted in favor; Melear and Carraway opposed. I spoke with Doug Duncan, who described himself as a strong supporter of property rights. He said, “I’m a property rights person. I believe the Constitution allows folks to profit from their property.”
Duncan said he generally believes property owners should be able to profit from their land and, as a rule, will approve what the owner wants to do, unless it’s something so out of bounds that the community couldn’t reasonably accept it.
Commissioner Trey Allen, who is leaving for a White House position, disclosed both a friendship and a professional relationship with Patel before quoting Edmund Burke: “Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Allen was unavailable for follow-up comment, and it remains unclear whether his vote would have been different without that personal connection.
Commissioner Mike Carraway has voted against liquor store proposals in the past, though it’s unclear whether this reflects a blanket opposition or an individual judgment. Commissioner Connie Melear frequently raises questions about neighborhood opposition before voting, suggesting she may have weighed the number of nearby residents who objected in this case. If you’d like to hear directly from your commissioner about their philosophy on issues like this, two Town Halls are coming up:
- Couch (District 4) & Carraway (District 3): Thursday, Aug. 21, 6:30–7:30 p.m., 1958 Appling Courthouse
- Couch (District 4) & Melear (District 1): Monday, Aug. 25, 6:30–7:30 p.m., Hardin Auditorium at the Columbia County Library in Evans
* Not sure which district you’re in? Log into Georgia’s My Voter Page and click the “My Districts and Elected Officials” tab.
As for my personal opinion, I fit the stereotype of a middle-class white mom who likes wine (mostly Pinot Grigio if you’re curious). I also make my own vanilla extract, so I use vodka or rum for that. I don’t live in the area in question. I have a soft spot for small local business owners, but the nearby residents raised valid concerns. However, rules matter, and this site meets every county requirement, and the property’s been zoned for commercial use for decades.
What bothered me, though, is that the debate devolved into a character referendum on the business owner, Malay Patel, and one commissioner outright said publicly that his reasoning (at least partially) for voting in favor was because he thought the owner was a good person. I have never met Patel, and I’m sure he’s a lovely human; however, we should be making decisions based on objective criteria rather than personal relationships. It makes it too easy to open the door to discriminatory practices. Nobody should have to be friends with a commissioner to open a business in Columbia County. I was relieved during the interview with Chairman Duncan that his approval was based on an objective, principled position, as opposed to any personal relationships.
The building to be constructed will not only have a liquor store but also lease out two other businesses. The owner is looking for a coffee shop and a restaurant as tenants. Whatever side of the debate residents were on, I’m glad people showed up to speak. Not everyone will get what they want every time, but showing up, speaking out, and engaging is democracy in action.
The next commission meeting is Aug. 19 at 6 p.m. in the Evans Government Center Auditorium. I hope to see you there.
