Each town and city would be allowed, but not required, to issue at least five such licenses. If the town or city’s population is greater than 5000, it can issue an additional license for each additional 5000 people.
As you might expect, the supermarket industry supports this ballot question. Their web site is http://www.WineAtFoo… . Equally predictably, local liquor stores fear competition from supermarkets, and oppose the question. Their web site is http://www.NoOnQuest… .
Let’s discuss it here.
Please share widely!
This is basically a turf contest between the big supermarket chains, and their independent competitors & local liquor stores.
But we as voters are still charged with deciding which side to support.
This question is framed as being about supermarkets vs. liquor stores, but I think it could more meaningfully be framed as chains vs. independents. The big change this law makes isn’t allowing supermarkets to sell wine, but allowing more than three stores with the same owner to sell wine. When framed the first way, it seems like an easy non-brainer to vote yes. When viewed the second way, it’s a different question than it at first seemed.
<
p>
So, my goal is not to argue for or against either side. My goal is to promote the second view of this question, to get more people to see it for what I think it is.
And this is precisely why I will vote No on Q#1. The vast majority of liquor stores in my city are locally owned. Stop and Shop, Shaws, Big Y, etc.? Not so much.
Yep, I agree as well.
<
p>
Pro: Helps supermarkets. Might increase convenience of buying wine at the grocers and not convenience stores, liquor stores or other businesses that allow alchohol sales.
<
p>
Con: Hurts small businesses. Increases the power of chains as opposed to local ownership of individual stores.
<
p>
Also: Anyone else think the limiting of licenses is a farce? The formula is 3 + (population-5000)/5000. How many towns will max out their number of licenses? My home town of Weymouth has ~50,000 people. We certainly don’t have 12 supermarkets.
Actually the formula is 5 + (population-5000)/5000.
<
p>
I’m troubled by the conflicting claims of the two sides: will these licenses go mostly to supermarkets (as the Yes side asserts) or will they go largely to convenience stores, drug stores, and gas stations (as the No side claims)?
<
p>
I don’t like the idea of gas stations selling alcoholic beverages. I wish the proponents of this question had included “does not sell gasoline” in their definition of a “food store”. Such a restriction would have been in their interest if they intend the main beneficiaries to be supermarkets.
<
p>
The No side loses points in my book for making the false claim that Question 1 will force dry towns to issue licenses.
Ron, I’m not sure if I like the idea of gas stations selling alcoholic beverages, but I definitely don’t like the idea of stations selling fresh meat (or eggs, or bread, etc.)
<
p>
I can only imagine the number of infections, etc. from people buying a pound ground chuck from ExxonMobil. Gives me the shivers thinking about it.
An interesting point but Question 1 actually would require the “food store” to sell only either fresh or “processed” meat. By my reading this would include hot dogs, beef jerky, luncheon meat and maybe even meat-based soups.
<
p>
As discussed, the Question has a list of items that must be sold to qualify as a “food store”. Yet, I think it’s pretty clear most gas/convienence stores could qualify. Here, for example, is one item in each category that a gas station could easily sell: beef jerky, chicken-based hot dogs, milk, eggs, bannanas, Oreos, baking powder, canned anything, and candy bars. I’m pretty sure my Lil’ Peach sells all of these things (though lottery tickets and cigarettes are by far the biggest sellers).
the Stop & Shop in my town has an adjoining gas station. Some big box retailers (Sams Club, et al) also sell gas. So, it ain’t that simple.
I didn’t realize that.
I can’t tell if I drink much less than I did until last year because I graduated college and started to grow-up, or if its the simply the fact I don’t pick up beer at the grocery store like I used to (at college in upstate NY) and never think to go to a liquor store for such things.
<
p>
Food stores should be able to get any kind of alcohol license in my opinion, especially wine and beer which are served with food usually. Why this ballot question is only for wine is very odd to me.
The question is limited to wine, because wine drinkers are all responsible adults, and only drink wine with meals, so the proliferation of more stores selling wine won’t harm anything. That’s the logic that the big stores are hoping people use when voting on this question.
<
p>Then in the next election cycle, the argument will be made that the wine in food stores law is elitist and discriminates against Joe Sixpack, who is a responsible taxpayer who likes to have a beer with his dinner or while watching baseball. The stores will then push for beer sales.
<
p>This question is most likely the first step in an incremental approach towards expanding the number of package store licenses.
I believe the supermarkets initially wanted the question to be about both beer and wine, but then decided to limit it to wine under the belief that this would cause less opposition.
I have quite mixed feelings on this, and haven’t decided yet.
<
p>
As a small biz owner (although not in this industry), I feel for the Mom & Pops.
<
p>
As a consumer, I would like to be able to make fewer trips, save gas, save time, and pick up a bottle of wine at the grocery store on occasion. And Costco, a blue company, sells some decent wines at good prices, and I wish I could get them at the one I use–but I can’t because of the 3 license thing.
<
p>
Mostly all I have decided is that now I want some Woodchuck Cider–I only drink it in the fall, really, and hadn’t thought about it until you mentioned cider….
That’s our fave cider brand which is the Bulmers label in the US from what I understand (Bulmers is the Irish cider, which my hubby and I got attached to on our honeymoon in the western half of that country.)
That stuff was nasty. Give me a good Guinness or Smithwick’s any day. American hard apple cider or Woodchucks. I only choked down the pint to get my money’s worth.
/off topic rant
Woodchucks is very different from Bulmer’s. It is less sickly-sweet and more cinnamon-spiced.
Magner’s always tastes spoiled to me, which is odd considering that Bulmer’s was my drink of choice in Ireland. I like Woodchuck as well, and you can sometimes find Strongbow around here, and that stuff is pretty good too.
I haven’t decided how I feel about this yet, but I generally tend to support mom-n-pop’s over multi-million conglomerates. Convenience vs. Service? I think anyone who’s had to ask for help in Home Depot knows what I mean.
<
p>
However, I do find it amusing that the liquor stores (including my local store)are pushing the evils of alcohol to help make their point: Beware of drunk drivers! Save your kids! Some of these stores are in your neighborhoods! They even cite the guy who was recently busted for his 15th DUI. Umm, where did he get his alcohol for the first 14 DUI’s? Not at the supermarket.
<
p>
It reminds me of a debate we recently had in town over a new Wendy’s restaurant. This guy took out huge ads in the local paper about how fast-food is bad for you, fast-food restaurants create grease that will clog up the sewer, drive-thru traffic was dangerous, etc. Turns out, he owns the McDonald’s right across the street…
I have lived in at least two other states that allow grocery stores to sell wine and beer. Virginia was one of them. If what I saw there is any indication, this whole fear of competition thing is so overblown.
<
p>
When I lived in Virginia, there were two wine stores, one liquor store, and a grocery store that sold beer and wine within walking distance of my home. In fact the grocery store, wine store and liquor store were all in the same mall. All the stores seemed to be doing fine, despite the competition, and as far as I know, they are all still in business. (I moved back here five years ago.)
<
p>
As for the claim that there will be an increase in drunk driving if question 1 passes, I do not remember there being an inordinate amount of drunk driving problems in Virginia when I lived there, at least not any more than we have here in Massachusetts. In any event, it seems like it should be pretty easy to check the validity of this claim out by looking at the rate of drunk driving arrest/convictions in states that already allow grocery stores to sell beer and wine.
<
p>
The other argument I have heard against question 1 is that groceries stores and convenience stores (which apparently will be included )will not check ids carefully like liquor stores do. So there will be a lot more underaged drinking. Again, it seems like this factoid can easily be checked out by looking at what has happened in other states.
<
p>
The long definition of a “food store”, listing all the products they have to sell, seems designed to exclude most convenience stores. Whether it actually does, I don’t know.
<
p>
It does have one effect that may not have been intended: a vegetarian grocery store could not be eligible for this license, since it does not sell meat or poultry.
I didn’t even think of that. That’s poor writing of the law.
are there? Most vegetarians get their stuff either at farmers’ markets or places like the food co-op or Bread & Circus/Whole Foods stores that offer a variety of organic/natural foods, including meat, fish and dairy.
I don’t know if there are any. But if there are (now or in the future), this proposed law excludes them from eligibility for a wine license.
If I remember correctly, I think that liquor stores in Virginia are all state run (the ABC stores). So you could buy beer and wine pretty much anywhere (particularly grocery stores and even convenience stores) but liquor was only sold at state-run ABC stores.
<
p>
I can’t really comment on how mom and pop wine stores did versus the grocery stores (I bought all my wine at the Harris Teeter which had a great selection). But then again, maybe that fact is comment enough.
It seems Virginia has a similar system that NH has, right? NH liquor stores are owned by the state, and beer and wine are freely sold in supermarkets, gas stations, etc. Because it’s our neighbor, perhaps NH is the best state to use for comparison purposes.
about the liquor stores. In Virginia the state operates the liquor stores (which sell hard liquor), whereas here the state licenses the liquor stores. I cannot think of a reason why this difference would matter, however.
<
p>
The wine stores I know about in Virginia are privately owned (licensed by the state). They operate quite successfully even though they are in close proximity to to at least one grocery store that also sells beer and wine. I think it is partly because someone who wants to buy just wine will go to a wine store rather than stand in line at a grocery store.
sell beer and wine. Convenience stores, too–when we first moved down here my husband was blown away by the fact that one could get a case of beer at a gas station…one-stop drunk-driving…but so far as I can tell, it hasn’t hurt smaller wine stores, there’s one right near us. Is there a lot of drunk driving here? Well, … OK, yes there is, but frankly I think the problem is that there is too much driving here, as opposed to too much drinking. That’s the great thing about Massachusetts–you have public transportation (except for late at night–do they still shut down the T before the clubs? Anyway, this is about drinking at home).
For what it’s worth, here is a summary of some old research on the issue. It is all I could find with minimal time. The results of the research look inconclusive.
isn’t question one supposed to be about fixing property values at time of sale and returning 40% of state revenue to cities and towns in the form of local aid?
<
p>
or is that proposition not actually on the ballot? 😉
That’s Christy Mihos’ Proposition 1.
Click here to see all the 2006 ballot questions.
I intend to make similar posts regarding Questions 2 and 3 over the next week or two. Question 3 is the most obscure, and seems to have no committee organized against it.
did the wink not make it clear i was joking?
Cos says, “This is basically a turf contest between the big supermarket chains, and their independent competitors & local liquor stores.”
<
p>
Agreed.
<
p>
Ron Newman says “But we as voters are still charged with deciding which side to support.”
<
p>
Unfortunately, we are charged with making this decision. But why? Personally, I’m opposed to the idea of government by referendum. That’s what we have elected officials for. Let them sort it out. My policy is to vote against any ballot question unless the legislature as a group has some kind of conflict of interest (e.g., campaign finance reform).
<
p>
So if you want supermarket chains to be able to sell wine, my suggestion is to vote against this question then call your legislators and ask them to support a bill to do the same thing.
If you really meant what you said, then shouldn’t everyone refuse to vote on the question and then call their legislators? By voting you are deciding which side to support.
If I vote against it the status quo rules. If the question fails the result is the same as if it hadn’t been on the ballot at all. If the people who support it want to they can still take it to the legislature. Voting against ballot questions is really the best way to force the issues into the legislature rather than onto the ballot.
I see your contention that it’s an issue for the legislature, but the fact is the question is already here. It’s on the ballot. Voting against it is the best way to kill it, not necessarily force the Legislature to deal with it.
<
p>
In doing so, you are sending a message to the legislature and those involved on both sides of the question that you opposed it, not that you opposed the process.
Voting for it sends a message to trade groups like the one that put this message on the ballot that this is a good way to bypass the legislature. Most of the time the groups that get these questions on the ballot have already tried and failed in the legislature (I’m honestly not sure if they tried with this one).
<
p>
The bottom line is that passing laws this way is a bad idea and voting for these questions encourages it. Think of it this way: if you get some SPAM that advertises something you actually want (I know, not likely) would you buy it and encourage the spammer? Not me.
Like it or not, the supporters of any question have to pass several hurdles to get the question on the ballot. They’re not exactly Legislative Spammers.
<
p>
Ballot questions are a tool and they’re not going anywhere any time soon, so my belief is that people ought to vote up or down on the merits of the question itself.
<
p>
Barring that, maybe you should collect signatures to get a question on the ballot that would ban questions on the ballot.
I just want them to be reserved for things that for some reason the legislature can’t be trusted to decide because it goes against their interests (campaign financing reform, lobbying reform, that kind of thing). How liquor licenses are distributed is just not something that needs to go before the voters.
<
p>
Will you hold hearings on all the ballot questions this year? Will you assign someone from your staff to research them and provide you with their findings? That’s what the legislature is for and that’s why I prefer to have them decide these issues rather than putting them up for a vote.
How about a ballot question on a constitutional amendment to change the ballot initaitive process, such that each ballot question has three options:
<
p>
* Yes – enact this law
* No – I oppose enacting this law
* Punt – Don’t enact this from the ballot, but send it to the legislature
<
p>
You’d still need a majority “Yes” for the initiative to pass, but if Yes didn’t get a majority and there were enough Punt votes that they would’ve made a majority if added to the Yesses, then the legislature can take it up without the sense that it already “lost” at the ballot. And perhaps the legislature would be required to take it up within 12 months, if Yes + Punt > 50%.
From a pragmatic standpoint, that wouldn’t be the most intelligent thing. Not many congressmen or women are going to file bills that just lost a ballot referendum… not a great way to get reelected to try to pass something that was defeated by a popular vote.
<
p>
That said, I mainly agree with you on ballot question issues. However, in Massachusetts, referendums are more like suggestions than changing law. I’m not opposed to that because it gives power to the people. One must ask themself why there are laws that would restrict selling wine at chain stores in the first place – and the answer is lobbying. It’s not quite as easy to lobby the population as it is to put some bucks in the pocket of a congressman.
<
p>
I intend to be voting yes on question one. While I value Mom and Pop stores, I also value competition. I doubt too many stores will run out of business over this, since beer and hard liquor is still banned, and it could just drive wine prices down for those who drink (I don’t).
Referendums in MA are a bit more than simple “suggestions”, since they do actually change the law. The (major) difference is that it is “non-binding” in that the legislature is free to change the new referendum-passed law at any time. This differs from California, for example, where any referendum passed must be repealed by the voters, not by the legislature. Our system is far superior, IMO, and CA’s far too restrictive.
<
p>
In any case, I fully agree with your statements on Question 1.
If the referendum passes it becomes law. Legislators have passed bills on a number of occasions that overturned ballot initiatives that passed, so it’s not unreasonable to think that they would pass legislation similar to a measure that failed. Ideally, they would put it through the legislative process and ammend it appropriately before passage.
<
p>
My real point here is that the best way to prevent government by resolution is to vote against these measures. If you start saying, “yeah I agree that we shouldn’t legislate by referendum but I think supermarkets should be able to sell wine…” you’re not taking a stand against this practice.
<
p>
It’s true that lobbying has most likely played a role in this not being passed by the legislature, but that’s true of pretty much every matter that comes up. If we say we’re going to have a referendum every time lobbyists get involved with a bill we’ll be like California. They have 13 initiatives on the ballot this year.
<
p>
What percentage of the population do you think researches and thinks out their position on each of these initiatives? I’m a political junkie and I just heard of questions 2 and 3 for the first time today. Lots of people have mentioned the deceptive practices of one of the organizations opposing this initiative. With very little media coverage of these questions it’s quite easy for someone to just lie about what a law will do or bury the details and get it passed by people who have only seen one side’s TV ad or read the summary on the ballot in the booth.
<
p>
So take a stand and vote no on all three questions. If you feel strongly about any of them call your legislators and ask them to address the problem.
I’m not fully against Massachusetts referundums. I think that people should be infused with a little more power in the political process. To clarify, what I’m against is constitutional amendments – which would be permanent – on issues that aren’t worthy of constitutional amendment (ex. some states have their tax rate in the constitutional code).
<
p>
Uninformed voters are allowed to vote for Clerk of Courts, who they’ll know nothing about; at least, when it comes to ballot questions, there’s some information to help the average voter to decide whom to vote for other than “R” and “D.”
<
p>
This new class of licenses wouldn’t increase competition. The big change here is not more competitors getting licenses, it’s more licenses for the existing big chains. The number of entities competing with each other wouldn’t change nearly as much as the number of licenses granted to existing entities, allowing them to use their economies of scale to reduce competition.
<
p>
It’s not just competition between retailers, mind you – I think the less visible but more fundamental effect is competition between sources. In the same way that having a Waldenbooks and Borders in every mall and no independent bookstores means the big publishers get most of the shelf space and other books get squeezed out, reducing variety… I expect the same effect on wine.
<
p>
That in and of itself is not a trumping argument for voting no. But just realize that the practical effect of approving this law would more likely be less competition, not more.
In California, for example, wine and beer are sold in grocery stores, and I don’t think anyone’d claim that plentiful and cheap have squeezed out variety and quality there…
<
p>
It seems to me that this discussion — though it’s raising good points — is ignoring a key one: there are actual examples to look at. How have small and independent liquor stores fared in states that do allow liquor sales at supermarkets? I know I wouldn’t start going to Stop & Shop for most of my alcoholic beverages, because they’re never going to have the variety that Gordon’s or Marty’s has.
let the corks dry out.
I’m not really sure how this wouldn’t increase competition. If grocery stores sell wine, they will have the leverage with wholesalers to reduce the price they pay for bulk purchases, which in turn may be passed on to consumers. If they don’t pass the savings on, fine — then people won’t likely switch over to buying wine at the grocery stores. However, if they do pass on the savings, how does this not increase competition? I don’t understand your argument here.
<
p>
At worst, prices for wine would not come down by any appreciable amount. I think it’s more likely that prices drop at least somewhat (due to supermarket negotiating leverage). Either way, competition is not decreased.
<
p>
IMO, a “no” vote on Question One is a vote for the wholesale wine industry, and against consumer choice.
I’m a little confused. What does “passing on savings” have to do with competition. Indeed, if the savings is induced only through large scale purchase, this would be a decrease in competition as it would give those large scale operations (chains and corporations) a competitive advantage over ‘Mom and Pop’ stores.
<
p>
By your logic, Wal*Mart increases competition by ‘passing on the savings’ to their customers so much that soon they have no local competion left.
You said yourself that these savings would give a “competitive advantage” to the “large scale operations”. If they are offering lower prices than other stores to customers and “win” because of it, then is that not the process of competition? The best price wins?
<
p>
In any case, I doubt that most grocery stores would carry a huge and varied selection of wines — it would probably be the ‘ol stand-bys (including wine-in-a-box, of course). Here, the liquor stores could maintain a competitive advantage because of selection and knowledge of wines. So some liquor stores would certainly survive. And even if they didn’t, it would be because of lower prices from grocery stores.
<
p>
How is this bad for consumers?
This could be bad for consumers because the grocery stores will cherry-pick just the most popular brands, taking away the money makers for the small retailer.
<
p>
I have to believe that in a typical wine store, some brands must move quite a bit of product, and others are probably technically “money-losers” because they’re consuming shelf space but not providing that much profit. A wine store can afford to have both sets of products, and in fact, must have both sets to draw customers.
<
p>
I think of Wal-Mart and what they have done to the toy business. They carry only the most popular items, and are able to offer lower prices than other toy stores because they can spread their operating costs over a ton of other products. They can even afford to sell certain things at cost as loss-leaders. As a consequence, we are essentially seeing the demise of the toy store, including even large national chain stores like Toys R Us and regional chains like Kay-Bee.
<
p>
I have to figure that a similar phenomenon will occur with grocery stores.
Cos, the small liquor stores that are around now are unlikely to just disappear. Will they lose some business? Sure. To be honest, though, I don’t really care about liquor stores being terribly profitable. It isn’t an industry I really care about; people die daily because of the stuff they sell (and few and far between have I ever been carded on the rare occasion I actually drink).
<
p>
Beyond that, more stores will be able to sell this liquor – which absolutely will increase the competition. Unless you find studies showing me how my logic doesn’t play out in the real world, I’m going to stick with my argument because it makes far more sense.
I would theorize that in any given area surrounding a grocery store, there are a number of liquor stores.
<
p>
If that grocery store sells wine, then one of two things will be true. Either more wine will be purchased (market will expand) or people will buy less wine at liquor stores and will instead buy at grocery stores. I doubt that the third possible alternative — less wine sales — will occur.
<
p>
In response to this competition, liquor stores will do one of three things. First, they could try and raise prices on wines and other products that grocery stores don’t carry. Second, they could try and take less profit — but the “monopolistic” tag being thrown around is false, because there is already competition between liquor stores. I don’t think there are too many fabulously wealthy liquor store owners. Third, they could go out of business.
<
p>
If just one of the liquor stores surrounding a grocery store goes out of business, there is no longer “more competition”. Yes, the market may be more competetive because grocery stores will exert downward pressure on prices, but there will be the same number of players.
<
p>
Now I don’t see this happening solely because of wine sales. I suspect that beer prices will probably go up a little bit to offset the lost profits. But I also expect the next referendum to be “let’s allow beer and liquor sales at grocery stores”.
<
p>
When that happens, I think that we will see less competition. Look at other industries with the entry of large players. How many independent drugstores do you know of? How many independent bookstores do you know of? How many independent grocery stores do you know of? Not very many. Are we better off? That’s debateable. I don’t think the pursuit of cheap prices was worth death of local/regional commerce.
<
p>
People have pointed out that there are liquor stores co-existing with grocery stores in other states. But we don’t have any picture of what happened when grocery stores entered the market, nor do we know if those liquor stores consolidated into mini-chains to compete on scale with grocery stores.
<
p>
I realize that this will have some benefit for the consumer, but I think the greater benefit is for the grocery stores. I like the idea of small merchants a lot more than I like the idea of more profits going to Royal Ahold. I like the idea of a local or even regional department store over Wal*Mart. I like the idea of a local record store over Best Buy.
<
p>
I also agree with the post here — a business-sponsored referendum is an awfully sticky thing. What’s going to be next — will businesses sponsor referendums to lower workman’s comp rates, or reduce environmental controls, disguised as another issue?
<
p>
Finally, I don’t see how this bill wouldn’t open the door to sales of liquor at convenience stores. The law says:
<
p>
<
p>
My local convenience store sells processed meat (hot dogs in a package), canned goods, milk, baked goods (wrapped in cellophane) and eggs. It would have to offer a basket of apples, some chicken in a package, and flour to qualify. I don’t think that’s much of a stretch to do. That also describes CVS pharmacies, except for the fruit and poultry.
<
p>
I don’t often get the opportunity to vote for the type of commerce I like; I’m going to take this opportunity to do so and vote no.
I vote a hearty yes… perhaps this is a way of getting supermarkets with fresh food into Black neighborhoods… there are plenty of liquors stores on every corner. And if they wipe out the local liquor stores … so be it… the owners never live in the neighborhood anyways nor do they contribute anything to the area. If there must be liquor at least let it come with food…
<
p>
Why no beer???
I don’t see why this would get ‘fresh food(stores) into Black neighborhoods’. That has little to nothing to do with whether alchohol is sold in those stores. The problem exists in many cities and does not seem to have any correlation (in my experience) on whether you can buy beer, wine or booze next to the Captain Cruch.
I think there may be some general arguments to be made for government to protect small businesses from large corporate chains (or, more accurately, to level the playing field given all the legal protections large corporations already enjoy). However, it makes no sense to me to use arbitrary, product-specific regulations like “supermarkets can only sell wine in three or fewer locations.” The only VALID purposes of regulating liquor sales that I can think of are ensuring proper ID checking and collecting taxes accurately. I don’t see how question #1 would have a negative impact on either of these.
<
p>
Conclusion: yes on #1
<
p>
Side note: remind me sometime to write a post about why direct-vote binding referenda are bad.
My biggest problem with the no-on-Question-One side is the complete misrepresentation of facts to try to make this seem like more than a simple (and selfish) “protect our businesses” argument.
<
p>
For instance, the “no” side keeps claiming that a “yes” vote will result in more underage drinking. There is no data from other states to support this view. First of all, younger people tend not to drink wine anyway, so the risk is overblown. But more importantly, liquor stores have not been shown to be better than supermarkets, etc. at enforcing the under-21 law. And even if they were, then this is an enforcement problem that could be dealt with bigger fines, etc. rather than a (nearly) wholesale prohibition on wine sales in supermarkets.
<
p>
The fact remains that the central (really, only) reason that there’s any opposition to Question One is because of the massive power of the wholesale liquor industry. They fear the competition, and because they can’t come right out and admit this, they’re trying to introduce scare tactics to the campaign.
<
p>
A “yes” vote is the clear pro-consumer vote here.
Did you mean the retail liquor industry — the package stores? Selling wine in grocery stores doesn’t bypass wholesalers, so I don’t see why they’d care one way or the other about this.
They’re afraid of the negotiating power of the supermarket chains who, if they are allowed to sell wine in multiple stores, will be able to negotiate lower prices from wholesalers due to their volume. Your local neighborhood package store doesn’t have the ability to negotiate price concessions from the distributors since they’re a single location serving a limited market. Stop & Shop, Shaws, etc can leverage their size to force the distributors to lower their wholesale prices.
Since supermarkets in many nearby states have already been able to sell wine and beer for years, whatever impact wholesale buying has had on distributors is already in effect. I don’t think the distributors have much of an opinion; if they do, they are probably in favor of supermarkets selling wine if it increases the total amount of wine sold.
The liquor distribution system is byzantine, and most distributors operate in only a relatively small geographic territory. That means that any store within that territory has to buy a certain brand of wine, beer, or liquor from that particular distributor. The impact of supermarkets in NY or NH selling beer or wine will have little to no impact on the prices a MA distributor can charge its customers in MA since the store can’t go to the NH or NY distributor if they think the prices are too high.
I think that the ultimate result of a “yes” vote on this question will be a reduction in the number of small liquor stores in the state. I think that the same market share will be spread among a lot more players, causing a number of them to close. Since liquor stores are more specialized — and perhaps despite this specialization — they will be most affected by the loss of share.
<
p>
I don’t think this is going to ultimately result in more competition — I think it will result in far less, and I think that every other industry has proven this out with the entry of large players. Drug stores, convenience stores (neighborhood markets), coffee shops, music stores, hardware stores, bookstores, toy stores, radio stations, etc.
<
p>
I think that in a large part, this trend is making our country worse. I think it stinks that things like local bookstores, toy stores, candy shops, pharmacies, tool stores don’t exist anymore. I’ll admit that the convenience and pricing angle is very tempting, so much so that I’d probably go for the low-cost, high-convenience option myself, but I sure don’t crave it in my day-to-day life.
<
p>
I think that a healthy local merchant class is an important part of our society, and I have no problem with laws that protect small players in a highly competetive environment, even if it results in slightly higher prices and slightly more inconvenience.
<
p>
Why is this even being proposed? Are that many people in this state truly pissed that they can’t buy their wine at a grocery store? Do those people stand to benefit that greatly from this law? No, the group who will benefit the most is the large chain store because this allows them access to a market which is closed to them.
I want to buy wine easily. Adding a good wine department to a supermarket would save a lot of time, and maybe money too.
Local mom and pop stores not only make sense in an urban environment, but are still largely relevant there (at least in the bigger cities of this region, like Boston). In suburbia – or heaven forbid, rural towns – it’s just impractical to have tons of small, itty bitty stores. Some of them make sense, of course, and I prefer to shop there when possible. Furthermore, you won’t find someone who is more against Walmart than I am – I shopped at Walmart once in 2 years, and that was only because I had an emergency and needed something quick. I’m simply not in favor of companies being that big or having benefits/wages that lousy.
<
p>
I don’t find it too burdensome on the economy to have general “toy stores,” instead of 25 different kinds of little, itty bitty toy stores – or “supermarkets” instead of meat, fish, produce, etc. You just can’t logistically have all of those stores in small towns; there wouldn’t be the market or even locations.
<
p>
It’s when you got things like Walmart that this really started to destroy the economy, because walmart was a Toy Store, Food Store, Hardware Store, Clothing Store, Jewelry Shoppe and even Auto/Guns/Home & Garden all in one. That’s where it starts to hurt small towns and even suburbia, instead of being a convienance.
is cheaper. Yes for me.
…for no reason than Ed is voting yes, I feel a compelling urge to vote no.
<
p>
😉
I agree with Gary! Just goes to show that I can indeed agree on some things with those of the differently-winged persuasion.
Bringing people together since the 8th Millenium BC!
You’ll have new wine sections in your local supermarket, but have to go to the liquor store to buy beer.
<
p>
Still yes for you?
But is it too late to modify the ballott question to fix, what can only be, an inadvertent gaffe leaving beer off the ballot??
<
p>
Seriously though, yes I knew that, and yes on 1.
I guess. I have decidedly mixed feelings about that whole thing.
<
p>
Thanks though.
As of now, I will be voting no on one. This ballot question was not brought by the people, it was brought by large corporations and that should raise a red flag for us progressives. Secondly, I have plenty of local wine and liquor stores to go to and I am happy to support smaller businesses. I would like to learn more about the notion that this will increase underage drinking and drunk driving because most of these liscences will go to convenience stores, not supermarkets. The no on one people claim “Sting operations in other states show that convenience stores allowed underage buying 52% of the time while dedicated package stores failed to stop underage buying only 15% of the time.” That concerns me because I am proud to live in a state with one of the lowest drunk driving death rates.
but keep in mind that the “no” side is driven in large part by the wholesale wine industry, which isn’t exactly the progressive side. I would imagine (but I don’t know) that if consumer groups picked a side, they would urge a “yes” vote.
<
p>
I can’t speak directly to those statistics, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that they are true. Two points need to be made about this.
<
p>
First, if it’s true that supermarkets are doing a worse job checking IDs, then this is an enforcement issue, not a reason to largely prohibt supermarkets from licencing. Increased fines, more sting operations specifically of supermarkets, etc. should be used to combat the problem if it indeed exists.
<
p>
Second, I’m always annoyed when general policy is dictated based upon the actions of a few irresponsible people. Even if there was a direct link between selling wine in grocery stores and increased drunk driving (which I doubt), then it still isn’t reason to reduce consumer choice. It’s somewhat akin to MA’s ban on happy hours, done mainly to combat drunk driving. (I’m against this “happy hour” ban, because it’s basically punishing the vast majority of responsibile social drinkers for the actions of a few irresponsible people.)
I’ll be voting No on Question one for both real and silly reasons.
<
p>
Convenience
I dont drink beer at all or wine very much so I dont care. But since it wont add any convenience to my life Ill vote no because I dont care if it helps other people get their wine easier or cheaper and helps the giant supermarket chains gouge more money from consumers. If you want wine you should have to make a conscious choice to go get it rather than buy it as an impulse item like you do a candy bar at the check out line.
<
p>
Kids dont drink wine
The argument about young people not drinking wine so it wont add to underage drinking is just not true. If it is easier for them to get wine than it is beer they will drink wine. When I was 18 the drinking age was still 18. The drinking age changed to 21 sometime between the time I was 18 and 21 so I was of the Massachusetts generation that got to drink legally, then werent allowed to drink legally and then could drink legally again. However back then I did drink wine. Cheap, sweet, sickening wine like Boones Farm Strawberry Wine and other wines of questionable quality.
<
p>
The Wal-Marting of Wine
Independent liquor stores sell a wide variety of specialty wines and wines from independent wineries. Not being a wine connoisseur, when I do buy wine I go in and look for the oddest name or the prettiest label. I doubt very much if the chain supermarkets will stock smaller labels and I do think this could hurt those wineries. The corporations will make a deal with large wineries for a cheap price at high volume and that will be what is available. Eventually people get lazy and will forget about the wines they might have found in an independent liquor store and just buy Wal-Mart Brand Wine or whatever the large chain stores have decided you should have.
<
p>
Cheaper Prices
Sure the large chains will make some deal for cheaper prices with wineries but they want to sell wine to increase their profits. How much of that discount from Gallo will be passed on to the consumer? Have you checked the price of milk lately? The price difference for common items in Stop and Shop, Shaws and Market Basket can be quite large. Stop and Shop and Shaws charge way more for milk and just about everything else. I doubt if they will change their ways with wine. Maybe at the beginning to get you out of the habit of going to the local liquor store, but it wont last long.
So we should allow increasingly overweight Americans to be tempted with impulse-buy candy bars but not allow people who like to drink to be tempted with impulse-buy wine? If we’re going to have a nanny-state, let’s go all the way.
<
p>
Really though, I think the “it’s bad to allow people to buy alcohol on an impulse” argument is ridiculous. I haven’t decided how I stand on this debate (leaning yes), but you can’t decide which vices we should ask people to go out of their way for.
you can’t decide which vices we should ask people to go out of their way for.
<
p>
Actually I guess we can decide that. It’s question 1 on the ballot! 🙂
<
p>
There are other vices that you can’t buy at the supermarket either. Prostitutes and drugs.
I thought that was rather obvious. Of course supermarkets don’t sell the illegal vices.
I have not heard that claim before, but your logic is a little faulty. You claim that when you buy wine you look for the oddest or prettiest label, not for the cheapest price. I bet that a large segment of people purchase wine based on quality or taste and not price. Buying wine for many people is not like buying milk because there are so many differences between different wines. I think the same is true for a number of beer drinkers. As proof, one needs to look no further than to the fact that in the past decade, a number of small wineries and small breweries have opened. I do not think that has happened because Massachusetts does not allow wine to be sold in grocery stores.
I can speak to this question as someone who lived in D.C. for a while and got to see what it was like to have Supermarkets that had one. Granted, I shopped at a nicer Supermarket, but there was about 3-4 full isles of wine – of all varieties. They had a LOT more wine than the average liquor store, of that I can assure you.
<
p>
Personally, the argument that this will increase kids drinking holds no water. For one, anecdotally I can say that Supermarkets tend to almost always card people. On the other hand, I almost never get carded at liquor stores – even when I’ve bought a lot of alcohol at the same time. I’ve even purchased alcohol when I forgot to bring my license.
<
p>
The first time I ever bought alcohol, just after I turned 21, I wasn’t carded. If I haven’t shaved in a few days, I just plain old won’t get carded. If I did shave, it’s about 50/50. I’m only 22 and I don’t look that old for my age. I highly doubt I would have been carded frequently when I was 18 or 19 (I look about the same now). My point here is that liquor stores that I’ve been to (all over the state) don’t card like they should anyway.
<
p>
Supermarkets couldn’t be any worse at carding. They’d probably be a lot better.
<
p>
Furthermore, despite the fact that I rarely drink, I think the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18… so if people who are 18 or 19 aren’t carded, I could probably care less.
copying my view from my own blog:
<
p>
—
At first I was for this: I like wine, it would be handy to be able to buy it at the grocery store. Most states allow wine (and beer, even) to be sold by grocery stores. MA’s laws against it are a puritanical nanny-state throwback. The main argument by the “No on 1” camp seems to be the “Oh noes! Alcohol is dangerous!” crap. (A quote from one package store owning opponent of the measure: “This is not a product of convenience. It needs to be watched overto make sure it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.”)
<
p>
But then I changed my mind: the folks fighting for this laws are supermarkets: big bucks corporations like Stop n Shop and Shaws. Liquor stores, on the other hand, tend to be smaller local business, and in general, I’m in favor of supporting small local business over megacorps. If there was a proposal on the table to get the state’s hand out of limiting liquor sales all around in favor of letting the free market have its way, that would be one thing. But we will still have a market tightly controlled by local and state government — but in favor of big corporations, not mom n pop shops. The “Yes on 1” camp is harping on the “monopoly” of the state’s package stores, but that argument doesn’t sit well with me coming from the likes of Shaws and Stop n Shop. (Some huge percentage of the state’s groceries are purchased at stores own by a tiny number of companies…who has the monopoly here? The current law, in fact, limits any single company from having more than three liquor licenses, so a package store monopoly seems like an impossibility. The new “wine at food stores” license would not have a similar limitation.)
<
p>
And the “yes on 1” folks have this stupid argument: “allowing Massachusetts grocery stores to sell wine will provide millions of dollars in new revenues”. Um…only it the total amount of wine sold increases. Will general demand for wine increase if Stop n Shop sells it? if so, then perhaps the “Oh noes! Alcohol is bad” folks have a point.
<
p>
And then there’s my personal bias. I like wine and convenience is good, but so is selection. I most enjoy buying wine at little specialty mom n pop wine shops. That’s the place to get informative advice on wine, get exposed to obscure makers, and so forth. Stop n Shop might put the Wine Cask next door out of business selling only Almaden and Gallo.
Having lived in many states that have wine and beer (among other beverages) in supermarkets I have to say I much prefer the MA way of package stores and wine shops. I don’t think it is a good idea to have teenagers at the check out counters who can not buy alchohol themselves checking IDs. When I was in Maine I never saw a single one of them check an ID and I saw a lot of booze sold. I really think 1 is a bad idea.
I don’t quite get the “little guy v. big guy” argument here. And let me tell you why.
<
p>
You know how perplexed we all get when blue-collar workers vote Republican? It seems crazy to us that they’d vote against their own economic interest like that. After all, Republicans aren’t out to help the working class.
<
p>
Well…I’ll tell you what. That “mom and pop” packy down the street? First of all, let’s stop romanticizing them by calling them “mom and pop.” Mum and Dad don’t run those places, okay? It’s more like “Sully and Vinny.” And Sully and Vinny have had a great ol’ time selling me crappy wine for $15 a bottle for a good long time. They’re not out to help us the same way the republicans aren’t out to help the working class. Why am I voting against my own economic interest in favor of some mythological idea of this “good guy,” “mom and pop” store? No thanks.
<
p>
And on the underage thing…that’s ridiculous. I grew up in NH, and the hardest places to try and get beer were supermarkets, and the easiest places were the littler places. The little places didn’t have electronic scanners or video cameras watching for their employees to screw up.
<
p>
So, don’t weep for the packies…they’ll be fine.
considered a big guy or a little guy?
Kappy’s web site is so lame that it doesn’t even list store locations. Switchboard.com finds 16 liquor stores with this name. How do they get away with this, when Stop & Shop or Trader Joe’s can’t?
I believe Kappy’s stores are independently owned and they are franchised. That’s how they get around the ownership limitations.
<
p>
There was a Kappy’s near here that was sold about 2-3 years ago and the new owner was sued by the Kappy’s group because she did not buy the franchise and had not changed the name. So, she basically posted an ‘I’ over all the signs and now goes by the name “Kippy’s Liquors.”
Okay, you are right that I’m romanticizing a bit by calling them “Mom n Pop”. but even if it is Vinny and Sully, I still support local business over Mega Consolidated Associates Inc. Right now we have a system that favors small business, by limiting the number of licenses a single business can own. If we removed that rule while not increasing the number of licenses, small local packies would get pushed out by some packie conglomerate. This new proposal pushes competition in favor of megabusinesses over small business, whether though small business are run by Mom n Pop, Vinny and Sully, or Raheem and Abdul. In a market so tightly controlled by government, these seems unfair.
<
p>
(You are totally right that the underage drinking thing is a complete red herring.)
I think this debate is silly, in the main, and that Massachusetts is way too paternalistic for its own good.
If we were still in the blue law days (package stores closed sundays), I’d be voting yes.
But since seven day liquor sales are now the norm, I see no reason to undercut the mom & pops in favor of the big chains.
<
p>
Most supermarkets have a packy only steps away. Not usually a big deal, convenience-wise.
Anyway, I am 100% with you LI.
I’m gender neutral on this one. Or gender blending. How ’bout both?
There are many good reasons to oppose the Referendum.
<
p>
First, it will increase liquor licenses (wine only for now) and liquor license enforcement. That means governing boards, police and health departments will have work to do granting and supervising licenses.
<
p>
Second, the whole point is to shift sales and profit away from locally owned stores and allow for increased business by large chains (supermarket and convenience store) at their expense. We talk so much about helping small business but then screw them every chance we get.
<
p>
Third, the difference in the price of wine (and other liquor) among states is governed more by tax policy than competition.
<
p>
Fourth, a personal thing is that I am tired of big money corrupting the political process by spending a bundle to push through public policy outside of the legislative process.
<
p>
Thanks.
so you can through argument four right out the window
<
p>
As for your other arguments – sure, there will need to be more regulation, but chances are volume sold (and taxes raised) will be greatly increased.
<
p>
Your next argument – based on the point of this – is flawed. Sure, it will add profit to some larger chains, but it will also provide more convienance and probably competition for consumers. That’s a good thing.
<
p>
As for your third argument, that price is more governed by tax than competition… so what? You oppose supermarkets selling wine because it will won’t change prices? Seems kind of silly to me.
You ever try to buy a liquor license? They are pretty expensive. I would not be surprised if they are a decent source of revenue for local and state government, even after the increased regulation expense.
An article in the Globe said it well:
<
p>
<
p>
Seriously, the only votes in opposition to question 1 should be the owners of liquor store because they’re the only beneficiaries of a no vote.
In states that allow wine sales in supermarkets, there hasn’t been much dropoff in sales in other stores, mainly because the best reason for selling wine in supermarkets is to be able to get that bottle of Yellowtail or J Lohr for dinner without having to go to a separate store. The folks who need their cases of Cardinale or Opus will stll be regular customers at the well stocked wine shop. As for the stores that don’t cater to that clientele, they make their money on beer and liquor, so everybody wins.
<
p>
I’m voting yes in case you couldn’t tell…
<
p>
C
I bet the stores that sell Opus still make most of the rent on Yellowtail. I don’t actually know that for sure…this isn’t my business, but judging how much the wine stores are fighting this, I assume THEY don’t agree with your logic.
…but thanks for the compliment! I’m actually in a similiar job as 2 of the head honchos of this blog…
<
p>
Of course if I owned a liquor store I would fight against this question…competition is competition…but the stores who specialize in WINE (not beer or liquor) have enough variety to keep the wine consumer coming back. This question is mostly to benefit the once a week wine shopper. Good wine shops actually don’t carry Yellowtail or J Lohr…the biggest loss is to the very stores that rely on cheap wine…Opus may have not been the best example…my bad…it’s a vanity wine for many…my point is…good wine shops cater to a different clientele than the folks who drink everyday wine only…not that one is better than the other…just different strokes for different folks…it’s all good.
<
p>
C
All my favorites carry Yellowtail, Beringer, Kendall Jackson. Gallo and other mass produced wines, in addition to the higher end and/or more obscure brands. In fact they carry enough of it that I believe in contributes significantly to their bottom line.
It would make my life so much easier if I could go to the store and buy all my ingredients that I need for dinner that night in one place. I live in a dry town so this really does not affect me but We have a Stop and Shop in Malden that has a beer and wine license(not sure how I think it is a test store or something) but shopping there is so much easier.
<
p>
This really does not hurt liquor stores, many states have these laws and there are still liquor stores. It may hust there revenue a little bit but not as much as everyone thinks. If this bill was to create liquor stores inside of food stores I would vote no but I do not see the harm in letting the local stop and shop sell wine.
<
p>
I am voting YES on QUESTION #1
<
p>
Now can anyone give some advice on questions 2 and 3??
Any supermarket chain, including Stop & Shop, is already allowed to have three liquor licenses. Your store is one of the three that S&S chose for a license. If they sell only beer and wine, then either the city added that restriction or else S&S just doesn’t desire to sell any other alcoholic beverages.
<
p>
When Shaw’s and Star Market merged, did they have to give up three of their licenses, or were they grandfathered in?
I’m planning to vote Yes. I’d like to see wine (and eventually beer) be sold at places like Trader Joe’s, where I frequent. I’ll still go to the local liquor stores when I want to get a better variety of wine, beer, or hard liquor in general. I honestly don’t think this will hurt the independently owned liquor stores that much, as it’s JUST wine. A lot of people (especially college kids) prefer beer and hard booze over wine anyway, and with the amount of colleges in this state, the law probably won’t hurt the liquor stores a whole lot.
First as to rebut the above comment that voting yes will not hurt independent retailers much it’s only “wine”.
<
p>
First you shouldn’t vote or post unless you are informed wine pays the bills for retailers. Spirits and beer are all very low margin items that grocery stores wouldn’t want to sell anyways. Wine carries with it 35 to 40% margins if wine sales drop for the idependent retailers 30% many would go out of business.
<
p>
Reasons you should vote no:
1. Keep profits locally Shaw’s, Stop and Shop, Trader Joe’s are not locally owned companies, the profits from the independent liquor stores stay within the community. Look at chain states like Florida and California, the local retailers are going out of business, their is no such thing in FL as a small mom and pop retailer anymore.
<
p>
2. Regulation, it is much harder to regulate the sale of wine of you are a 12 row grocery store and add 500 licenses to the state. Under age buying will increase, and don’t be fooled if wine goes to food stores beer will be soon to follow.
<
p>
3. Chain law, this law will be breaking the 3 chain per license law hurting the independents even more, because they sell wine and spirits they can still only own 3 licenses but the grocery stores can have 500.
<
p>
5. The local retailers are good people. I have been in this industry for a long time and manage a large territory with 24 states. I live in Boston and have found that the local retailers are really good people and work together on issues facing the industry and state including under age drinking and addiction. The current retailers regularly donate to local charities and national programs to help alchohol abuse.
<
p>
I can’t think of a good reason to vote Yes unless you love Gallo wine only and to save you from walking an extra block.
the small retailers that do not go out of business will be forced to raise their prices on liquor and beer. A yes vote will cost us beer drinkers more money.
Here we are in a state that’s supposed to be full of intelligent, educated people, and yet they manage to shoot themselves in the foot through ignorance. If people in this state got out of the state once in a while, and saw what the rest of the country looked like, they’d:
<
p>
– Get rid of police patrols at road construction sites. Why cost ourselves a ton of monay by making construction companies hire cops when 49 other states have switched to using contractor-provided flag persons who can direct traffic better than the lazy, privileged, overpaid off-duty state patrolmen we have who don’t direct traffic while they’re standing on the streets;
<
p>
– Allow people to ship themselves wine from out of state. If you like wine, and you want to visit a winery in, say, California, Oregon, France, or — pick your location — and send a case back to yourself, you’re out of luck because the liquor wholsalers here have buffaloed our “smart” state into beliveing it is harmful to us — when in fact it only harms them.
<
p>
– Allow us to buy wine in the grocery store when we’re buying the rest of the stuff we’re buying to make for our dinner guests. I can’t tell you the number of other states that allow this; I just know that it makes sooo much sense from a convenience point of view when I experience the pleasure and convenience of this in other states. And it hasn’t “killed” the retail liquor stores in those states; often there are liquor stores in the same strip malls as grocery stores that sell wine. Those stores simply work harder to provide a better product and service. If they do, you visit them. Simple consumer choice at work.
<
p>
Face it: The grocery stores are going to provide the “everyday” stuff. Liquor stores are still going to sell vodka, whisky, rum, etc., and if they want to sell wine, they’re going to have to sell the “good stuff.” We’ll go to them to help us find vintners, vintages, and wines that are special. Slightly higher priced, but worth our trouble. They have to compete in the real world against larger competitors who want to “own” the commodity business. This is real life for all other product categories, where small companies need to find a way to compete without artificial constraints on the big guys. Why should wine be any different.
<
p>
This state is SOOO freaking full of “We’re smarter than the rest of you and we’re going to look out for the little guy with our government-knows-best way of managing our state.” I’m no right-wing conservative; I don’t care for a ton of the Republican agenda. But state regulation that Democrats / Liberals run to is very rarely the answer to problems. The state should NOT be preserving the byzantine alcohol regulations in this state. The regulations are so busted.
<
p>
Vote Yes, for sanity, please.