Assembly Bill 960, introduced by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, would allow cities to buy back the liquor licenses of shops deemed to be magnets for crime, in hopes of making neighborhoods safer and cleaner, Hancock said Monday.

"Liquor stores can be a tipping point for neighborhood deterioration," she said. "We have an obligation to the people who live in these neighborhoods to create stable and pleasant living conditions by shutting these stores down."

The bill is scheduled to be heard by a legislative committee in January.

San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and other Bay Area cities have attempted for years to close or clean up problem liquor stores, which abound in poorer neighborhoods.

A state law from the mid-1990s limits the number of liquor licenses allowed in each census tract, but the law exempted existing stores. As a result, some census tracts are overrun with liquor stores - including one tract near the Oakland Coliseum with five times more liquor licenses than the three it is allowed.

The state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues and enforces liquor licenses but can be slow to act on complaints, Hancock said. And while cities have tried to close liquor stores by revoking their use permits, the process can be long and cumbersome.

Since 2004, Oakland's Neighborhood Law Corps has succeeded in closing 10 liquor stores and is working with owners to clean up a few dozen others, but more help is needed, said the program's head, Alex Nguyen.

"We want the state to improve its enforcement or give more authority to localities to deal with this problem," he said. "It's extremely important to shut these stores down. When these stores are closed, it has a huge positive impact on a neighborhood."

The California Grocers Association, a trade group that represents about 6,000 grocery and liquor stores, opposes the bill, saying it's overly hard on small business owners.

"We believe the provisions of AB960 are an unfair seizing of a legally granted alcoholic beverage license and could cause undue financial strain on small business owners," Kristin Power, the group's vice president of government relations, wrote in a letter to Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont.

Ample state and local laws already exist to deal with irresponsible liquor store owners, Power argued.

Hancock's bill would allow cities to buy back liquor licenses for nuisance stores that are in neighborhoods with a high concentration of liquor stores, are within 200 feet of a school or are in high-crime areas.

The law is sorely needed, said Joan Kiley of the Alcohol Policy Network in Oakland, a nonprofit group involved in efforts to crack down on problem liquor stores.

"Some cities have been dealing with these stores for generations," she said. "It would be incredibly helpful to a local community if they had more tools. Right now they just don't have enough."

The majority of liquor stores, even in the worst neighborhoods, are safe and clean, Kiley and others said. But in some cases, irresponsible owners allow crime to occur inside and outside their stores and fail to contact police, thereby creating a haven for criminal activity, Kiley said.

Sometimes, solving the problem is as easy as installing windows and improved lighting. Stores that have an open, well-lit street presence tend to be relatively crime-free, she said.

Kiley, Nguyen and others would like to see the stores offer more fresh food and less malt liquor, cigarettes and Cheetos.

"We respect the right of the business owner to run their business, but we also expect them to fulfill their responsibility to the community," Nguyen said.