Unanimous Board of Aldermen Rejects Increased Competition and Consumer Choice in Wine Sales

[dominic-santos.livejournal.com]

At the October 12, 2006 meeting of the Board of Aldermen, a unanimous Board of Aldermen (Ward 4 Alderman Walter Pero was absent from the meeting) sponsored a Resolution that was ultimately approved “support[ing] the efforts of Somerville Cares About Prevention to defeat Question 1 on the Nov. 7 ballot, to allow supermarkets and convenience stores to sell wine, resulting in a 77% increase in liquor licenses in the city.” For the minutes of the October 12, 2006 meeting click here. This unanimous show of opposition against Question 1 clearly expresses the tenor of the current Board of Aldermen: legislate to protect entrenched and well-connected interests, and forget about the resident consumer. As Yes on 1 states (this is the organization leading the public relations campaign in support of Question 1, their website is here), “The facts show there’s no legitimate reason to prohibit consumers from buying wine at grocery stores.” With increased competition, consumers will pay less for wine, and those that care about supporting local businesses (I am among that crowd) can still visit their local liquor store. By supporting this Resolution against Question 1, the Board of Aldermen has declared that no choice is better for consumers.

I assume, without any factual support, that the Board of Aldermen is attempting to pander to the local liquor store population. Certainly, Question 1 does not present an issue of increased underage drinking. The spokesperson for the Massachusetts chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving told the Lowell Sun that Question 1 “is about . . . a battle for market share, and we don't have a dog in that fight.” Source: http://www.lowellsun.com/front/ci_4500491. MADD understands that this issue is about increasing competition and consumer choice, and not about underage consumption of wine. The progressive members of the Board of Aldermen should be ashamed the most. Instead of increasing competition and consumer choice, the progressive members of the Board of Aldermen are supporting a monopoly system that is prone to corruption and abuse. This Resolution is truly a sad day in Somerville history.

Comments

[ckd]

It's even sillier when you look at the proposed law and that it says "may be issued
at the discretion of local licensing authorities". Which would be...the city government, right?

So it would only "result[] in a 77% increase in liquor licenses in the city" if the city let it.

[dani-namaste.livejournal.com]

I actually disagree with this post. I think that Question 1 was a bad idea—it's not as if wine is THAT expensive in Somerville that nobody can afford it; I often find relatively inexpensive bottles of wine at local liquor stores, and at the Whole Foods and Trader Joe's, which do have liquor licenses. I don't see "increased competition" being a benefit to local business when there's a liquor store every three blocks or so in Somerville/Cambridge, many of which have very reasonable prices.

[ron_newman]

Most Whole Foods and Trader Joe's stores do not sell wine. Under current law, any individual or corporation can have at most three package-store licenses statewide.

The proposed question does not directly repeal that limit, but instead adds a new license category, "wine in food stores", that isn't subject to the limit.

[damsel-ophelia.livejournal.com]

I don't drink myself, so if I am getting wine for someone as a gift or to bring to a dinner party, I'm going to need help choosing it - so I'll go visit a liquor store because your average teenager stocking the shelves at Shaws isn't going to know port from Pepsi. There are plenty of other states that allow wine to be sold at grocery stores with no problems. If there were *any* indication that this would increase underage drinking, then MADD would be all over this like fleas on a dog. This isn't a safety issue, and it sickens me to see the fear-mongering over this ballot question.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with the board and plan on supporting the ballot, but I think this response is absolutely absurd.

This day will be entirely inconsequential in Somerville's history.

This day will be entirely inconsequential in Somerville's history.

[cos]

This is my favorite comment on this post :)

[ron_newman]

I have not decided how I will vote on this, but I started a long discussion about it at Blue Mass. Group. You wlll see that progressive Democrats are going both ways on this one.

I like my local packie, Downtown Wine & Spirts, and would hate to see them put out of business by expanded sales in supermarkets. But I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to vote no.

[an-art-worker.livejournal.com]

not to worry - they are not going to be put out of business (being the only liquor store in Davis). On the other hand - they are totally overpriced. Go over to Pemberton's and pay much less ($1-3) for the same thing

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

That pretty much sums up my feelings too.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

They won't be put out of business by wine in grocery stores sales.

They still sell beer, cider, and hard liquor, yes?

[twe.livejournal.com]

Personally, I most use wine for cooking and I hate having to make a special trip for it, so the result is that I make less of the the dishes that use wine. If this passed, I'd wind up cooking more of my favorite foods that use wine. :)

[cos]

I don't see this question having some great moral value or being about increased freedom, it's just a stupid turf contest, the big supermarket chains against the independent liquor stores. Supermarkets can already get liquor licenses, that isn't the issue. The problem for the big chains is that current law limits liquor licenses to three per owner, so if you have a big chain, you can only get it for three locations. No problem for locals like the Harvest Co-Op, for example - they can sell wine just fine. But for Stop & Shop, it's a problem. So, they sponsor this question to create another class of licenses, called "wine in food stores", tailored to their business model - with a limit in the thousands.

Although I don't care deeply about it one way or the other, I'm more in favor of voting no than yes.

Exactly.

[mattdm [typekey.com] (from livejournal.com)]

I find it particularly funny to see all the propaganda about how they're so hurt at the Trader Joe's in Cambridge, which HAS a license. In fact, the signs and pamphlets were right next to their wine.

Honestly, I'd like to see the experiment of extending this licensing restriction to from alcohol to, say, the permission to sell $3 coffee-based drinks.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

it's just a stupid turf contest, the big supermarket chains against the independent liquor stores.

Right, the independent liquor stores, who are making it seem like all they are worried about is safety.

For all that it is just a turf war, at least the supermarkets aren't lying with scare tactics.

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

Oh, I see the value in having a three per owner law. So yes, I would be against this law unless they paid a very high premium in fees to the communtiy to aquire the license. It sounds like the whole thing was put into the ballets by a lot of special intrests lobbying. I already don't like that our government resources are spent on businesses with the most lobbying dollars and commercial buying power.

[overstim.livejournal.com]

An then there are the small grocery stores who are TOTALLY ignored in all of this- people like my father who is scratching to get by, and selling a few bottles of wine a day would make a HUGE difference to his bottom line.

[ceo]

I haven't decided how I'm voting on this bill; there are good arguments to be made on both sides.

But the small liquor stores are pissing me off enough with their blatantly dishonest "Question 1 will result in more underage drinking!!!" ad campaign that I may vote Yes just for spite.

[ron_newman]

I'm more bothered by their false claim that Question 1 will force dry towns to issue licenses.

[foxalbers.livejournal.com]

Put me in that same column. I regularly shop at Trader Joe's in Cambridge, which already sells alcohol, so it makes little difference in my life whether or not their other locations can sell it.

Still, all the ridiculously negative commercials pushing the "NO" position just makes me want to vote "YES."

[bgum.livejournal.com]

Grocery stores selling booze means longer lines to purchase food on Thursday or Friday or Saturday evenings. I often shop at the Prudential Shaw's and notice it does make a difference.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

Both the states I lived in before this sold all manner of alcohol in grocery stores; I'd never heard of a state where you couldn't buy alcohol in grocery stores, and was exceedingly confused the first time I tried to buy cooking wine, for, you know, a recipe, at a grocery store, ie the same place I bought everything else that went into the recipe. The current law just seems absurd and barbaric to me.

[marylu.livejournal.com]

they do sell cooking wine in grocery stores, though -- not sure how that works.

I'm with the people who don't feel strongly about this but lean towards voting no -- I think supporting small businesses in this instance outweighs the benefit to the consumer. BUT I agree that it's a sad day in Somerville history (melodrama!) simply because I don't see how it's the business of the Aldermen to be spending time at their meeting coming out in favor of having public employees spend their time working to defeat a ballot question. The Somerville Journal made a big deal about city employees holding Deval Patrick signs while seemingly on the clock, and I don't see how this is very different.

I'm voting no

[rollzroix.livejournal.com]

But mainly because I just don't like ballot referendums. This is what we pay our state legislators for. It's called representative government. Yes, they can be cajoled by lobbyists but so can the public be fooled by well funded television commercials.

FYI: Possibly the reason MADD hasn't come out against this has more to do with the fact that they were bought off (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/10/05/liquor_sellers_hit_madds_ties_to_supporters_of_wine_measure) by the supermarkets than anything else.

I would agree that this is probably not going to affect underage drinking but logic and reason has never been MADD's strong suit (see the campaign to get the legal BAC limit lowered to .08, when research shows that driving while talking on a cell phone is far more dangerous than people driving with a .08)

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

monopoly system that is prone to corruption and abuse.

Money spent at a chain store is more likely to leave the communtiy.

If we can make our local community a monopoly in which mom and pop stores take care of us, and we take care of them, then corruption and abuse are nothing more than good family values.

[clevernonsense.livejournal.com]

ha! awesome

[chumbolly.livejournal.com]

I generally take the view that a law should have a legitimate purpose regardless of its effect*, so I wonder, what was the original purpose of the 3-store, packys-only law? I presume it came into being on the heals of Prohibition, when the government kept an iron grip on the alcohol industry, I imagine in part to mollify the anti-booze crowd. Times have changed since then. Whatever the original purpose, the effect of the law has been to create a well-coddled industry that has a strong interest in maintaining the status quo, and while the current law may keep the liquor business local, is that really a legitimate government purpose? Why should the government tell us where to buy a certain product so long as it is sold safely? Remember, it used to be illegal to buy hammers on Sunday in Massachusetts (work being badbadbad on the Sabbath and all that), so sometimes it's a good idea to revisit these old chestnuts. Remember how a few years ago we couldn't buy alcohol on Sundays? The original purpose of that law was clear--saved us all from going straight to Hell--but the effect was it enabled liquor store owners who were willing to work six days a week (but not seven) to run the business themselves without having to hire employees. With Sunday sales, they had to hire part-timers if they wished to get a day off. That's why liquor store owners opposed Sunday sales. I think the majority of us would agree that Sunday sales are A-OK, and boo-hoo for the liquor store owners.

Here's the thing: there may be plenty of liquor stores in Massachusetts, but there is not effective competition. That's because the wholesalers, who have much more bargaining power than individual liquor store owners, pretty much set the prices. Go to a state where Costco sells wine and you'll see what can happen when the retailer is the 600 pound gorilla.

*I'm no raging libertarian, but I find most government restrictions, be they liquor store regulations, laws telling me who I can marry, or laws restricting a woman's right to choose as being at least worthy of the hairy eyeball.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

The Costco in Waltham sells wine, fwiw.

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Fucking prudes. This is the kind of thing I loathe about Somerville.

[bgum.livejournal.com]

Fucking drunks. This is the kind of thing I loathe about Somerville.