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

[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.

[phoenixy.livejournal.com]

The cooking wine that's sold in stores is infused with salt and thus made unsuitable for drinking.