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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[dani-namaste.livejournal.com]

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of liquor stores in the area that a person could go to—many of which have very reasonable prices, and giving someone the ability to pick up their weekly 30-pack of Bud Light at the Stop and Shop instead of Joe's Liquors (just as an example) could seriously hurt those smaller stores whose livelihood often depends on that influx of weekend warriors.

Not every store in the area has a vast selection; quite a few I've seen are little mom & pop places that just sell the basics—those are the ones that would most likely start losing business when Question 1 hits.

[ckd]

Is Bud Light considered wine now?

[dani-namaste.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming that beer is among the alcohol options being considered for allowance, as both beer and wine are currently available in a few select supermarkets.

[ron_newman]

No, this question is specifically about wine in food stores. No beer, no cider, no hard liquor. Just 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.

[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.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

That pretty much sums up my feelings too.

[treacle-well.livejournal.com]

Yup. I was more inclined to vote No before I started hearing the whole "Think of the chillldruuun" rhetoric. That kind of fear-mongering has pretty much the opposite of the intended effect on 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.

[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?

Johnny's foodmaster

[artic-monkeys.livejournal.com]

I buy my beer and sometimes wine at Johnny's Foodmaster Supermarket on Beacon street in Somerville, It is right around the corner and a very short walk from me. I am very happy that I can. I don't see why anyone else should not be allowed to sell the same and the liquor license fees should help the city budget.

Was anyone able to explain why they would be against it? Were any of the explanations viable?

[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.