OPINION OF THE COURT
This сase began when Douglas Steve Replogle, trading and doing business as Ye Olde Barn Lounge (Appellant) filed an action for a Declaratory Judgment and Supplemental Relief in the Commonwealth Court against the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB). Appellant’s suit challenged the constitutional validity of the local option provision embodied in Seсtion 472 of the Liquor Code. 47 P.S. § 4-472. The local option provision permits municipalities, *211 by referendum, to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages within their borders. The appellant sought to have the court declare Section 472 illegal and void on the grounds that: (1) it violates Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; (2) it violates the Fourteenth Amеndment of the United States Constitution; and (3) it violates the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The appellant also sought supplemental relief by way of a rule upon the PLCB to show cause why an order should not issue directing the PLCB to consider appellant’s application for renewal of his restaurant liquor license pending resolution of the constitutional issues. In response to appellant’s action, the PLCB filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. A panel of the Commonwealth Court (Craig, Palladino and Kalish, J.J.) sustained the demurrer and dismissed appellant’s suit. Appeal to this court followed. 1 We now affirm.
The factual background of this case, as set forth in appellant’s complaint and in his testimony, 2 is as follows:
The appellant was the owner of a restaurant — lounge business which he operated under restaurant liquor license No. 20038 issued to him by the PLCB. The business was conducted in Penn Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania under the trade name of Ye Olde Barn Lounge. Appellant acquired the retail liquor license in August, 1972. He opened for business under the license on April 1, 1977. Apрellant was never cited for violating any provision of the Liquor Code and he renewed his license annually without incident. The appellant owns the real estate from which he operated the lounge. He purchased the property in order to get into the tavern business and over the years he invested about $150,000.00 in the realty in furtherance of his business.
*212 At the primary election held on May 21, 1985 a referendum, pursuant to Section 472 of the Liquor Code, was voted on by the voters of Penn Township. A majority of the electorate voted to ban the granting or renewal of liquor licenses in the township, and according to section 472, the PLCB then was without authority to renew appellant’s liquor license when it expired on January 31, 1986. Section 472 of the liquor code provides that a referendum may not be held in the same municipality “... oftener than once in four years ...” 47 P.S. § 4-472. Because of this limitation, the question of liquor sales in the township could not come up for another vote until, at the earliest, the primary election in 1989. As a result, the appellant cannot seek to have the voters reconsider by another referendum vote until that time.
Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides, in relevant part:
. nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.”
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in relevant part, provides:
“No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The appellant argues that Section 472 of the Liquor Code providing for a local option violates Article I, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution аnd the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution because the local option permits the voters of a municipality to execute a taking of private property without payment of just compensation. Section 472 of the Liquor Code, in relevant part, provides:
In any municipality ..., an election may be held on the date of the primary еlection immediately preceding any municipal election, but not oftener than once in four years, to determine the will of the electors with respect to the granting of liquor licenses to hotels, restaurants and *213 clubs ..., within the limits of such municipality ... under the provisions of this Act____ Whenever electors equal to at least twenty-five per centum of the highеst vote cast for any office in the municipality ... at the last preceding general election shall file a petition with the county board of elections of the county for a referendum on the question of granting any of said classes of licenses ..., the said County Board of Elections shall cause a question to be placed on the ballots оr on the voting machine board and submitted at the primary immediately preceding the municipal election.
In case of a tie vote, the status quo shall obtain. If a majority of the voting electors on any such question vote ‘yes,’ then liquor licenses shall be granted by the board to hotels, restaurants and clubs, ... in such municipality ..., as provided by this Act; but if a majority of thе electors’ voting on any such question vote ‘no,’ then the board shall have no power to grant or to renew upon their expiration any licenses of the class so voted upon in such municipality____
47 P.S. § 4-472. The appellant contends that the referendum of the Penn Township electors that barred the granting or renewal of retail liquor licenses within the muniсipality accomplished a taking of private property — his restaurant liquor license — for which he is entitled to just compensation. Appellant’s argument raises the issue of whether appellant had a property right in the renewal of the license. The Commonwealth Court concluded that he did not. We agree.
Neither the appellаnt nor anyone else has any property interest in the right to sell liquor in this Commonwealth.
Appeal of Spankard,
Prior to the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution it was recognized that the several states, pursuant to their police powers, had the exclusive right to regulate or even forbid the sale of liquor within their borders.
48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors, § 22.
In
Mugler v. Kansas,
The Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and established broad authority in the states to regulate, limit and absolutely prohibit traffic of any kind in alcoholic beverages within their respective boundaries. “There is perhaps no other area of permissible state action within which the exercise of the police power of a state is more plenary than in the regulation and control оf the use and sale of alcoholic beverages.” Tahiti Bar, Inc., Liquor License Case, supra.
While the States, vested as they are with general police power, require no specific grant of authority in the Federal Constitution to legislate with respect to matters traditionally within the scope of the police power, the broad sweep of the Twenty-first Amendment has been rеcognized as conferring something more than the normal state authority over public health, welfare, and morals. In *215 Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp.,377 U.S. 324 , 330,84 S.Ct. 1293 , 1297,12 L.Ed.2d 350 (1964), the Court reaffirmed that by reason of the Twenty-first Amendment “a State is totally unconfined by traditional Commerce Clause limitations when it restricts the importation of intoxicants destined for use, distribution, or consumption within its borders.” Still earlier, the Court stated in State Board v. Young’s Market Co.,299 U.S. 59 , 64,57 S.Ct. 77 , 79,81 L.Ed. 38 (1936):
“A classification recognized by the Twenty-First Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth.”
California v. LaRue,
In
Tahiti Bar, Inc.,
citing
Cavanaugh v. Gelder,
The legislature has specifically provided that the Liquor Code ... “shall be deemed an exercise of thе police powers of the Commonwealth for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the - Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.” 47 P.S. § 1-104(a). The local option provision of the Code (section 472) was adopted pursuant to the police powers of the Commonwealth for the general purposes as stated by the legislature. It was enacted in furtherance of and for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the peоple of Pennsylvania by giving the opportunity to the-voters of the various political subdivisions of the Commonwealth, to decide whether the sale of liquor should be allowed within their respective municipal limits. We hold this to be a valid exercise of the police powers of the Commonwealth bearing a substantial relationship to the stated objеct and purposes of the Liquor Code. As such it was a proper condition of the license issued to appellant and was a condition consented to by the appellant when he applied for and accepted the license.
The appellant argues that there is a distinction between the liquor license itself and the opportunity for business income that is directly tied to the license. Appellant asserts that he had a property interest in this opportunity for business income which was taken away when the local option vote was in the negative. He argues that it is for this property interest that he is entitled to just compensation. Appellant relies upon the cаses of
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia v. Lieberman,
*217
In
Liebennan,
the issue before the court was “whether, in an eminent domain proceeding, a condemnee whose retail liquor license loses value as a result of the condemnation of the premises for which the license was issued, is entitled to have such loss considered in the award of just compensation to be paid by the condemnor.”
Lieberman v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia,
In 1412 Spruce, Inc., the issue was whether a liquor license is subject to levy, execution or attachment in the enforсement of a money judgment. This has little to do with the question in the case sub judice. Whether a license *218 is or is not subject to levy, execution or attachment to satisfy a judgment, the license is always subject to the conditions of the Liquor Code. One of those conditions is the local option provision that could render the PLCB without the authority to renew the liсense as happened in this case. Where the electors of a municipality proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-472 of the Liquor Code and vote to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages within their boundaries, that vote is not a taking of private property for public use requiring compensation to those who are unable to renew a license.
Appellant further argues that the local option law (47 P.S. § 4-472) violates the Fourteenth Amendment
3
to the United States Constitution because it fails to provide due process of law safeguards to license holders in the various municipalities. Appellant contends that the lack of due prоcess results from the legislature delegating police powers to the electorate without providing standards to guide the voters. Appellant argues there is nothing to assure that the voters of a municipality will not vote to ban liquor sales for improper motives. First, we question the appellant’s characterization of Section 472 as a legislative delegation of police powers. “Under our constitutional assumptions, all power derives from the people, who can delegate it to representative instruments which they create.”
City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.,
There is a strong presumption of constitutionality enjoyed by acts of the General Assembly and there is a heavy burden on he who challenges an act. Legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution.
American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner,
Notes
. We have jurisdiction in this appeal from a final order of the Commonwealth Court which is in a matter originally commenced in that court. Pa.Rule of Appellate Rev. 1101; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 723(a).
. A hearing was held on appellant’s request for supplemental relief wherein he sought to have the court direct the PLCB to consider his application for renewal of his liquor license.
. .. ."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution