District 11 Supervisor John Avalos is as progressive as they come, but he's crafted a terrific proposal that is everything that the usual pie-in-the-sky grandstanding is not. It is focused on a serious problem in the city, it targets very real costs, and it makes specific recommendations that will make a positive difference. I'm impressed.

Avalos is proposing a "charge for harm" fee on liquor wholesalers and distributors that could amount to as much as a nickel a drink in San Francisco. That money would be used to pay for the costs of taking care of the city's chronic inebriants.

That group is famous for using the city's ambulance and fire services, clogging San Francisco General Hospital's emergency room, and using up valuable resources. There are documented cases of what are called frequent fliers' who use the emergency services so often that the annual bill runs to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The city controller's office will issue a report in the next few days that confirms the sad statistics. A spokesman at the office says the report has identified "a minimal estimate," of $15 million a year in costs for health-related treatment, transport, and alcohol abuse programs.

Avalos' proposal, which is expected to be heard in the Budget and Finance Committee later this month, could raise as much as $17 million. Just don't make the mistake of calling it a tax.

"It's a fee, not a tax," Avalos snapped in a text message.

He's not being cranky, that's an important distinction. Opponents of his proposal are insisting Avalos is trying to pull a fast one.

"A tax is a tax, is a tax, is a tax," said Matt Klink, spokesman for the California Alliance for Hospitality Jobs. "The restaurant and hotel industries are already getting pummeled in San Francisco because of the downturn in the economy. This would put San Francisco businesses at a significant disadvantage."

Frankly, that's a stretch. Avalos' bill only targets wholesalers and large distributors, not restaurants or hotels.

"Most alcohol production is controlled and profited by corporations based in Europe," said Bruce Lee Livingston of the Marin Institute, an alcohol watchdog agency. "This fee is trivial to San Francisco consumers and negligible to businesses."

And the advantage of fees is that they must be used only for the purpose that they were collected. A tax can be diverted to the general fund.

Avalos got the idea from the institute, which is based in San Rafael. Livingston says the concept isn't completely new - other states have collected fees - but San Francisco would be the first to apply money directly to law enforcement and medical costs.

"Other states tend to apply the fees to treatment and education," Livingston said. "This would be the first charge for harm fee. What we are saying is that there are huge costs involved and we are just trying to recover some of those costs."

As logical and thoughtful as it sounds, this is no slam dunk. Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose, has proposed two state bills for an "alcohol mitigation fee" in the past two years and neither made it out of committee. Statewide, Beall's bills were projected to create $1.4 billion to pay for alcohol-related services in California.

All in all this is a great idea. Much better than that wacky Gaza blockage resolution, which only served to heighten tensions in the city. The guy who proposed that one should take a page from this thoughtful, reasonable proposal by Avalos.

Oh wait. They're the same person. In that case, my advice to Avalos is to propose more of these for the city and leave world peace to the United Nations.

C.W. Nevius' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle