dissenting.
The city of Dallas faces a severe impediment to its redevelopment efforts for a portion of its community (South Dallas) that suffers disproportionately from poverty and crime. The Dallas Merchant’s and Concessionaire’s Association, the Texas Package Stores Association, Inc., and the five grocery and liquor store owners1 who are petitioners in this Court all readily concede that alcohol-related businesses are overly concentrated in certain areas of the City of Dallas, that this concentration of such businesses causes severe problems in these areas, and that the City of Dallas adopted Ordinance No. 19694 to reduce this concentration and alleviate these problems. Today the Court adopts petitioners’ argument that, regardless, the Legislature requires these matters to only be addressed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in Austin, and not by the Dallas City Council. As much as we all are concerned about community restoration, I too would have joined the majority if the law required this result. But, the Court’s decision is not mandated by the law. Therefore I dissent.
Ordinance No. 19694 prohibits thq* location of businesses selling or serving alcoholic beverages within 300 feet of-reájdéh-tially zoned property in certain area? of "the city without a special use permit. Thé issue before us is whether this limited restriction on the location of alcohol-related businesses is preempted by Tex. Alco.Bev.Code § 109.57(a) and (b). Section 109.57(a) provides that an ordinance “may not impose stricter standards on premises or businesses” required to be licensed under the Code than on similar premises or businesses, (emphasis added). Section 109.57(b) states that “it is the intent of the legislature that this code shall exclusively govern the regulation of alcoholic beverages in this state, and that except as permitted by this code, a governmental entity of this state may not discriminate against a business holding a license or permit under this code.” (Emphasis added.)
In my view, Ordinance No. 19694 does not “impose stricter standards on alcohol-related businesses or premises” within the meaning of section 109.57(a). Rather, it restricts the location of such businesses in some areas under some conditions. Nor does the ordinance attempt a “regulation of alcoholic beverages.” The ordinance has nothing to do with beverages. Nor does the ordinance “discriminate” against alcohol-related businesses. It merely imposes a restriction on their location to alleviate community problems which petitioners concede such businesses cause.2 This Ordinance is not, on its face, inconsistent or in conflict with state law. The ordinance is a reasonable supplement to state law to address a local problem. Both should remain in effect.
Assuming for the sake of argument that “location” may be considered a type of *495“standard” governing businesses, the law would still not mandate the outcome claimed by the Court. The Local Government Code states:
If a zoning regulation adopted under this subchapter ... imposes higher standards than those required under another statute or local ordinance or regulation, the regulation adopted under this subchap-ter controls. If the other statute or local ordinance or regulation imposes higher standards, that statute, ordinance, or regulation controls.
Tex.Loc.Gov’t Code Ann. § 211.013(a) (Vernon 1988) (emphasis added).
The Court’s reading of section 109.57 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code creates a direct conflict between it and section 211.-013(a). 852 S.W.2d 489, 493 n. 7. Where possible, courts are to construe language used in statutes so as to harmonize all relevant laws, not create conflict. La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Mercedes, 673 S.W.2d 558, 565 (Tex.1984); State v. Standard Oil Co., 107 S.W.2d 550, 559 (Tex.1937). Since it is possible, this court must construe the Local Government Code and the Alcoholic Beverage Code so that both provisions are given effect.
Section 109.57(a) prohibits a city from imposing stricter standards on premises or businesses licensed under the Alcoholic Beverage Code than are imposed on similar premises or businesses not required to have a license. Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann. § 109.57(a) (Vernon 1978) (emphasis added). The Alcoholic Beverage Code defines “premises” as “the grounds and all buildings, vehicles, and appurtenances pertaining to the grounds, including any adjacent premises if they are directly or indirectly under the control of the same person.” Tex.Alco.Bev.Code Ann. § 11.49(a) (Vernon 1978). Section 11.49(a) refers only to the physical premises; it does not define “premises” to include the location of a licensed business. The Ordinance does not attempt to regulate the physical premises. Additionally, nothing in the Ordinance addresses how the business of selling alcohol is to be conducted. The Ordinance only regulates the location of the business.
The Court recognizes that a city ordinance will not be held repugnant to a general law of the state “if any other reasonable construction leaving both in effect can be reached,” 852 S.W.2d at 491, (citing to City of Richardson v. Responsible Dog Owners, 794 S.W.2d 17 (Tex.1990)). Because a reasonable reading of these two statutes prevents the conflict the reasoning of the Court creates, there is no basis for restricting the City of Dallas’ grant of authority to promulgate zoning regulations under sections 211.001-.013 of the Local Government Code.
The Court's holding seriously hampers the ability of municipalities to combat problems associated with the sale of alcohol. The City of Dallas did not seek to prohibit the sale of alcohol, merely to disperse the locations for its sale in order to achieve a reduction in the problems associated with the sale of alcohol such as increased crime, drinking on premises, litter, loitering, public intoxication, urinating in public, and harassment of children and elderly residents.3 As petitioners admit, if cities cannot restrict the location of alcohol-related businesses, then only the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission can, in the course of granting licenses to businesses. Yet it would be virtually impossible for the Commission to obtain sufficient information in licensing proceedings to determine whether, how and where to impose such restrictions in the dozens of cities where they might be used. Petitioners admit that the Commission has not undertaken this responsibility to date, and it is farfetched to think the Commission would even try. The suggestion that the Legislature has decided that the Commission should address the local problems involved here instead of home-rule cities is most unlikely. Only those local planning, zoning and legislative bodies have, or can be expected to have, a pulse on the particular land use needs of their jurisdiction.
*496I agree with the Court that “if the Legislature chooses to preempt a subject matter encompassed by the broad powers of a home-rule city, it must do so with unmistakable clarity.” 852 S.W.2d at 491. Whatever may be said of section 109.57, it cannot seriously be argued that the statute makes unmistakably clear that the Legislature has preempted the City of Dallas from exercising its broad zoning powers to improve living conditions within its borders. Preemption is even less likely when one considers the result.
I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, thus I respectfully dissent.
HECHT and CORNYN, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.
. The five business owners are Solomon Ta-desse, d/b/a S & M Grocery, Nguyen Ha Lam, d/b/a M & D Liquor, Son Ngoc Nguyen, d/b/a Bingo Liquor, Youg Suk Bragdon, d/b/a K & B Grocery, and Thung Vam Tarn, d/b/a Lee's Grocery.
. This is not to say that any ordinance restricting the location of alcohol-related businesses would be allowed by state law. Obviously, an ordinance that prohibited the location of such businesses within a much larger distance from residential property might have the effect of eliminating those businesses altogether. Such an ordinance would conflict with state law. But an ordinance which is both written and applied to impose a limited restriction on location for a valid purpose does not conflict with section 109.57.
. Several community leaders in the South Dallas/Fair Park area testified that these problems were exacerbated by the excessive concentration of alcohol related businesses in the area.