Why do Sacramento bars close so early? CA bill could change antiquated law | Opinion
One Saturday night, a few weeks ago, I went out for a night on the town.
By the end of the evening, I had patronized no less than six of Sacramento’s finest food and drinking establishments, used ride-sharing services to jump bars safely from Midtown to Oak Park to East Sacramento, and ended the night with a single Mexican lager at Hilltop Tavern on Folsom Blvd.
We didn’t have time for a second Especial, though, because my friend and I were promptly shooed out of the bar at 2 a.m.
It’s certainly not a habit of mine to shut the bars down, but I’ll admit surprise at how early the evening still felt by the time last call rolled around. For a city that seemingly encourages nightlife and boasts several entertainment districts, why do our bars shut down so early? Turns out, that’s a statewide problem, even in much larger cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles.
(Well, not all of Los Angeles, but we’ll get to that.)
A new piece of legislation, Assembly Bill 342, could fix that problem, not just for Sacramento bars but for bars and restaurant owners across the whole state. Assemblymember Matt Haney, along with a fellow San Franciscan, Sen. Scott Wiener (who co-sponsored the bill), wants cities to decide when their nightlife shuts down, potentially unlocking a whole new revenue stream for business districts.
“It’s completely absurd that the state mandates a statewide closing time for all 500 cities in the state of California,” Wiener said in an interview with CalMatters. “Cities and towns should be able to set their own closing time based on their own local needs.”
I agree — the rules are nigh archaic and hamper our city’s ability to foster an entertainment scene.
Wiener has already taken three previous swings at this same topic in the last couple of years, though each proposal has been shot down at some point in the legislative process. Public safety officials trot out the same concern every time: More drinking will lead to more crime. But that’s not necessarily true; widespread adoption of ride-sharing services like Lyft and Uber can mitigate the risk of drunk driving that might have been a larger concern in years past.
And just last year, Newsom signed a law that allowed alcohol sales until 4 a.m. — but only inside the Los Angeles Clippers arena. (And I suspect that only happened because some very powerful people pushed for it, ahead of the city’s 2028 chance at hosting the Olympics.) But Wiener and Haney saw it as a sign that Newsom might be softening on his previous stance against extending bar hours.
Their legislation is currently under re-review by the Governmental Organization Committee.
For its part, Sacramento may soon join San Francisco in instituting what’s known as “entertainment districts,” after a successful pilot program in San Francisco — Wiener and Haney’s own districts.
A proposal will appear in front of the City Council soon that would allow bars and restaurants to sell open containers of alcohol for patrons, who could then enjoy their beverages outdoors during certain events in certain locations. Proponents say such a policy would not only spur economic activity, but it would be a step forward in the effort to boost Sacramento’s nightlife.
Sacramento has worked hard to create business districts across the city, including Downtown Commons, the R Street Corridor, Folsom Boulevard, downtown Oak Park and many more. But those businesses — and their burgeoning economic opportunities — are hampered by a morality-driven law that’s been on the books for decades.
It’s long past time to update the playbook.
My friends and I certainly would have stayed for a few more rounds at Hilltop that evening had we been allowed to, and still gotten home safely in a rideshare. That’s more money that could have been poured into the local economy — including all the money we would have spent on Advil the next day, I’m sure.
This story was originally published April 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
