My View: Hoosiers don't want expanded alcohol sales

Volume 119: February 11, 2013

My View: Hoosiers don't want expanded alcohol sales

February 2, 2013

The proponents of expanding the sale of alcohol in Indiana are again pushing for carry-out sales on Sunday and cold beer in gas stations. This ongoing threat to Indiana's regulations on how alcohol is sold is not a grassroots effort as claimed but rather a well-funded campaign by national chains to dominate the market at the expense of Indiana's long-standing public policy, a thousand small businesses and their 7,000 employees.

An economic study by Ball State professor Michael Hicks tells us the 25 percent of the Indiana-owned and -operated package liquor stores would go out of business if Sunday alcohol sales are expanded, throwing 2,000 employees and owners out of work. Indiana and local communities would lose millions of tax dollars from lost income, sales and property taxes. The negative economic effect would extend to suppliers of goods and services to those small businesses and millions of dollars would go out of state to the large chains that would profit from the change. The claim that Indiana would reap a tax windfall has been shown to be false by both the Legislative Services Agency and Hicks' study. Indiana's craft breweries and farm wineries would lose their best outlets.

Any expansion of alcohol availability has negative public health and safety implications. Numerous studies have shown increases in drunken driving, social problems and underage drinking. We know from polling done for the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers that an overwhelming majority of Hoosiers do not want our alcohol laws to be more liberal and they do not want to pay the price of deregulation. Hoosiers also don't think gas stations should sell any kind of alcohol - cold or warm.

We only have to look to a small handful of states that have deregulated to see what would happen. The state of Washington recently deregulated and privatized its state-run package stores. The independent retailers who purchased permits are not able to compete with the big box stores and are going out of business. Consumers are facing higher prices and fewer choices of both location and product. Many are driving to neighboring states to buy their alcohol.

The big box stores don't try hard to hide their predatory intentions to take market share from yet another small businesses sector - this one created by the State of Indiana as part of its public policy on how alcohol should be sold. They talk about "one-stop shopping." They refuse to separate their alcohol from other products so they can aggressively market alcohol to families when they shop for groceries. They demand and get free labor from their suppliers to stock their shelves. They will not hire any more employees. They want alcohol to be sold like they sell other products that do not have the social problems that come with alcohol.

Indiana should not go down the road to being like California or Washington. Indiana must maintain its public policy of controlling access to alcohol and reject those who want to deregulate the sale of alcohol by expanding Sunday sales to include carry-out and allowing gas stations to sell cold beer.

Livengood is president of the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers.

Source: Indy Star

Fate uncertain on Ind. Sunday alcohol sales bill

February 7, 2013

Supporters of ending Indiana's unique ban on Sunday retail alcohol sales will have to wait until at least next week before knowing whether their effort will advance in the Legislature.

Bills seeking to end the ban have been filed by legislators for the past several years, but an Indiana House committee hearing on Wednesday marked the first time lawmakers have taken up the proposal.

Public policy committee chairman Rep. Bill Davis, R-Portland, said after the hearing that he didn't support ending the prohibition of Sunday sales but that he'll talk with committee members before deciding on whether to advance the bill to the full House.

"We'll decide going forward exactly what we're going to do with the bill if we're going to vote on it next week or whether we're going to amend it," Davis said. "We just haven't made those decisions yet."

Dozens of opponents to lifting the ban filled much of the House chamber and gallery for Wednesday's three-hour hearing, with many of them wearing stickers saying, "No Sunday Sales."

Several liquor store owners and employees spoke against the change, arguing it would benefit large chain grocery and convenience stores that don't face age restrictions on who can enter and don't have the same requirement of hiring clerks with state liquor licenses.

Source: Pal-item.com

Pennsylvania: The other side to liquor privatization

February 1, 2013

A few thoughts about what was left out of the Jan. 28 article, "Gov. Corbett to push privatization of liquor sales":

First, there was no mention of the loss of revenue averaging over $100 million a year in exchange for a one-time cash windfall, the size of which pro-privatization interests have every reason in inflate.

True, tax revenue would continue, but there's another consideration. It's often argued that with higher prices in Pennsylvania than in surrounding states, privatization would bring lower prices. But according to the independent PLCB Users Group, Pennsylvania taxes alcohol more heavily than surrounding states do. Privatization alone would do nothing to change that, so lower prices are not a given.

The rather-extensively quoted Charlie Gerow, described by the Daily Pennsylvanian as "a spokesperson for the newly formed grassroots Coalition to End the Liquor Monopoly, is called "a prominent Harrisburg Republican consultant" by The Patriot-News of central Pennsylvania. The same article identifies other organizers of the Coalition as "a chairman of the state's largest taxpayer organization," the "retired president of the Columbia-Montour Chamber of Commerce" and the Cumberland County treasurer. Grassroots?

The DP article sandwiched a statement about the wine and spirits store on 41st and Market Streets closing with Gerow's comments about more stores opening and the "added convenience" to be brought by privatization. This juxtaposition seems to imply that the lack of a place to buy alcohol conveniently located near Penn is somehow the fault of the state store system. The store at 41st and Market closed, as the DP reported at the time, because of building issues. There would have been a new state wine and spirits store in the area around 43rd and Walnut streets, but it was strenuously opposed by the Muslim community associated with a nearby mosque.

Last June, again as reported by the DP, the zoning board approved a proposal for a store at 43rd and Chestnut streets. Don't think Penn, with its huge real estate empire and political clout, is going to allow a liquor store any closer than that!

Religious opposition to increased availability of alcohol is obviously a factor, as mentioned above. Many conservative Christian leaders oppose privatization, and in some parts of Pennsylvania this can be very important politically. Another anti-privatization force is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for obvious reasons.

What about the loss of some 5,000 jobs? It would be incredibly naive to think that huge numbers of present PLCB employees would magically pick up jobs in privatized retail situations. And even if they did it would probably mean the abysmal pay and working conditions of most retail employment. Think "race to the bottom" here. Does Pennsylvania need to shed any more decently paying jobs?

As far as health issues, in 2011 the United States Center for Disease Control's Task Force on Community Preventive Services recommended "against further privatization of alcohol sales," based on a review by specialists of the available research.

Finally, there is a widespread belief that privatization will inevitably lead to lots of incredibly stocked stores in great locations. The reality could be quite a bit different. Other states don't have alcohol superstores in every neighborhood. Is your supermarket going to stock everything that an average state store has? Want to shop for wine at Wal-Mart? If small operators could afford to buy licenses in Pennsylvania, no doubt the majority would only offer selections as limited as those in small liquor stores everywhere else.

Source: The Daily Pennsylvanian

Washington: Battle for the Booze

How Costco and big grocery stores are trying to corner more of the bar business

February 5, 2013

Supporters of Initiative 1183 had high hopes for a privatized liquor industry. A TV commercial for the initiative promised "more competitive prices." Supportive newspaper editorials predicted the extra competition would either drive down costs or keep them stable.

It didn't happen.

Blame the taxes, blame corporate profits or blame inefficiencies, but the reality remains: The initiative made liquor, on average, 13 to 14 percent pricier.

Now Costco and the Washington Restaurant Association have been surprised by a side effect of the initiative they helped write. Their complaint isn't about high prices - "the proponents of the initiative never claimed it would reduce prices," says Joel Benoliel, chief legal officer of Costco. Their issue instead hinges on the way the Washington State Liquor Control Board has interpreted 1183's fine print.

The initiative's 60-page text allows retailers to sell bars and restaurants, but says in that circumstance "no single sale may exceed 24 liters." The liquor board uses that to limit grocery stores from selling more than 24 liters to a bar in a day. On top of that, those sales get charged with a 17 percent fee.

Benoliel sees the liquor board's interpretation as in "direct conflict with the initiative itself." He accuses the board of "trying to change what the voters passed." Because of the 24-liter limit and the extra fee, many bars and restaurants won't purchase liquor from Costco and grocery stores.

House Bill 1161, introduced by Rep. Ross Hunter (D-Medina), would address that complaint by defining a single sale as any one transaction: All a restaurant would have to do to buy more from Costco is to ring up each 24-liter set separately. Next, the bill would clarify that restaurants and bars wouldn't have to pay the extra license fee applied to consumers buying booze off the shelves.

The bill has meant another round of legal lobbying at a Olympia, pitting one set of interest groups - the big grocery stores, the small liquor stores and the Washington Restaurant Association - against another, the small grocery stores, big distributors and the Teamsters.

In Spokane, Boots Bakery & Lounge opened in the middle of last June, just as the liquor initiative first took effect. Owner Alison Collins knew the transition would be bumpy.

"I didn't know how bumpy, to be honest," Collins says.

Instead of just calling and picking up her orders at a liquor store, she uses spreadsheets to manage orders from multiple different distributors that have exclusive contracts with specific brands.

Since Boots specializes in drinks made from more obscure liquors, it can get "crazy complicated" if they run out.

"Some people collect watches. I totally horde small-batch booze," Collins says. "I have no idea if I'm going to get it several months from now."

Three weeks ago, Collins says, distributor Southern Wine and Spirits ran out of Maker's Mark bourbon to provide to Boots. But if she wanted to go to Costco to get more, she'd be paying 17 percent more than getting it from her distributors. As a result, places like Costco aren't much of a contender for her business.

Source: The Inlander

Visit our website: Project RAD www.ProjectRAD.com