ext_225155 ([identity profile] syntheticnature.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2009-10-31 08:22 am
Entry tags:

Trader Joe's Fresh Pond will open Friday November 13th

My Cambridge city councillor, Craig Kelley, mailed this around:

I’m not sure why they picked the date, but on Friday, 13 November the new Trader Joe’s at Fresh Pond (opposite the current Whole Foods, adjacent to CVS on the rotary where Concord Ave heads out towards Belmont) will celebrate its grand opening. They’re not quite sure how elaborate the opening celebration will be, but for those of you who are Trader Joe fans, the store’s simply opening up is probably celebration enough.

[identity profile] cold-type.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 03:56 pm (UTC)(link)
In 2006, Massachusetts voters defeated a measure that would have let grocery stores sell wine at all their locations. "Opponents blitzed TV and radio airwaves with ads portraying the proposal as a public safety issue. They claimed teenagers would be more likely to obtain alcohol because convenience stores also could apply for wine licenses if the question were approved." Somerville's own police chief was prominently featured in the ads!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/MA/2006-11-07-ballot-initiatives_x.htm

[identity profile] cowhockey.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 05:12 pm (UTC)(link)
If it was just selling wine and beer in grocery stores, I think it would've passed. The bill included gas stations and mini-marts, which is why I think it failed.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/ 2009-10-31 10:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, the idea that the bill failed just because of public safety concerns is not entirely accurate.

While I'm certain it was a part of the rejection, there was concern that grocery stores selling liquor would put large numbers of independent liquor stores out of business.

I would have otherwise been all for grocery stores selling beer and alcohol.
Edited 2009-10-31 22:18 (UTC)

[identity profile] boblothrope.livejournal.com 2009-10-31 11:02 pm (UTC)(link)
It was just wine, not beer. And stores would only be eligible if they sell "fresh or processed meat, poultry, dairy products, eggs, fresh fruit and produce, baked goods and baking ingredients, canned goods and dessert items". That doesn't sound like a convenience store or gas station to me. And if it encouraged convenience stores to increase their selection of food, I say that's great.

The money behind all those public safety ads was provided by the established liquor stores and distributors.

[identity profile] sparkgrrl658.livejournal.com 2009-11-03 06:20 pm (UTC)(link)
gah!

this floored me when it initially failed, and now it's happening again.

what difference does it make? i guess i was just taken aback because at the time i lived in quincy - across the street from a mini mart that sold both wine and beer. and down the street from the star market. which had a brooks pharmacy next door that sold beer, wine, and liquor. all walking distance from T stops. and we aren't a bunch of out of control drunks.

[identity profile] gruene.livejournal.com 2009-11-01 01:45 pm (UTC)(link)
I voted against that law.

The grocery stores got greedy. If the new law was just "repeal the limit of 3 stores for the whole state", it would have passed in a heart beat, but instead they kept that law on the books and created an entirely new class of "wine only" liquor licenses just for them. Because that's just what Massachusetts needs, liquor laws that are even more byzantine and complicated! Towns were given very limited ability to regulate these new licenses, which I also disliked. Municipal Freedom gives National Strength, dudes!