To the editor:

Your Monday, July 6, editorial ("Money to be made with liquor licenses") sought to make the case for returning unused liquor licenses to the issuing authority. This is a very naive and dangerous thought.

The Peabody location advertised on Craigslist would have almost no value without that liquor license. Banks would not loan to a restaurant without being able to put a lien on that liquor license and ascribing a value to it.

Licenses all have different values, depending on the number available, location and the economy. Right now, licenses once worth $250,000 are worth only $50,000, and your thought is to let the fine stewards of our money, the city or town, control the sale of licenses. This is the same bunch that made 9/11 a paid holiday. Who is to say who gets to buy those licenses?

Would this logic apply to taxi medallions, common victualer licenses or a license to hold a yard sale? The taxing authorities get enough of the imputed value from real estate taxes; the state (and I'm sure, now, the cities) get enough from the meals and sales taxes, as well as the withholding taxes.

Would you also recommend that day fishermen check in with their catch to pay the city its share?

If the licensee doesn't comply with the restrictions on his license, it can be suspended or even lost. If a liquor license is not placed within a certain period of time after a place closes, the licensee has to surrender same.

That is enough control: The value should go with the person who took the risk, not the authority that "let" them risk their money.

Michael Madden

Gloucester