This morning I mentioned the liquor industry’s latest $1 million contribution to defeat Initiative 1183, which would privatize liquor retail sales and let big grocers encroach on the market.

In all fairness, Costco also just donated another $1 million to I-1183, according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, bringing the big-box chain’s total contributions to $4.9 million. That’s essentially just a donation to its own campaign, which seeks to give Costco a share of the liquor market in Washington State and big profits in the long run.

So neither side seems righteous: They both want money. As far as I can see, this initiative sucks for consumers—it requires retailers to have 10,000 or more square feet of floor space, ensuring that only mega-grocers would profit from it and selection would remain limited.

20 replies on “To Be Fair”

  1. And when very few people are in the market, they get to set the prices.

    Vodka seems mighty popular — might as well jack up the price!

    Glad we can vote on your initiative to grow your profits and keep small businesses out, Costco.

  2. Well, 10k square feet is not a “mega retailer”. That’s a fairly modest neighborhood chain market. Granted, it’s not a local mom and pop liquor store. Perhaps that’s not a bad idea.

    And why do you say that selection would be limited?

  3. @2, no, 10K square feet is pretty mega, limiting the small business types who can afford the high cost to get in that game. If you live on Cap Hill you might know the liquor store at 12th & Pine? Not big enough under the law. Especially with lending as frozen as it is, the 10K sf guarantees only the deep pockets get in.

  4. I think the most important thing that gets ignored in these discussions is just how much this state benefits economically from our state run liquor store model driving lobbying and initiative spending here.

  7. 10k is about the size of a Trader Joe’s – far from mega-retailer.

    And if memory serves, there is a piece that allows the current state-run liquor stores to be privatized, and remain liquor stores.

    Additionally, the laws impacted could be amended after two years, allowing the Legislature to allow for more mom and pop liquor stores, and maybe reduce the automatic license by a couple thousand square feet (so smaller Red Apples, or IGA’s, or places like Pete’s, can sell liquor, as well).

    This initiative isn’t perfect, but being revenue positive to the state, while also expanding the amount of places I can pick up a bottle of whiskey, and I’m having a harder and harder time opposing it.

  8. Holy fucking hell I don’t care who donates to the initiatives or why…having to buy booze from the state is fucking ridiculous.

    The rest is details.

  11. @9 – if memory serves, most TJ’s are 8-12k square feet. I’m not sure what all that is supposed to include (just the floor, the floor plus the backroom).

    As of 2007, the median grocery store size was 47,500 square feet.

  12. The first swing at the pillar counts though! If we pass this, then we can pass amendments to allow for smaller store sizes. We have to get a wedge in the crack and then chip away from there. An all or nothing approach won’t work here.

  14. Michael, I would contend that Trader Joe’s–361 locations and $8.5 billion last year in revenue, according to the never-been-wrong before Wikipedia–is a mega-grocer.

  15. Of course Trader Joe’s is a mega-retailer. They’re the Walmart of overpackaged food. They carry a handful of multinational brands that are already at state liquor stores, none of which are from local or small distilleries.

    There aren’t any businesses in Seattle that will have close to to selection of a liquor store, especially from small or specialty distillers. Probably a liquor warehouse or two will pop up on Aurora or SODO.

  16. “This initiative sucks for consumers.”

    That is an audaciously ridiculous claim. In fact, this initiative is about the best thing for consumers since sliced rum cake.

    – “Mega” grocery stores (i.e., any normal sized grocery store is 10,000 ft^2 or bigger) will be competing with each other on both price and selection. Prices will go down, way down, on lots of items, and selection will go way, way up in most stores. (Note: Washington’s liquor prices are currently well above what they should be, which we know from other adjusted state comparisons; also Washington’s state store liquor selection is currently the least diverse out of 50 states for consumer access to liquor selection.)

    – NW distilleries will have an easier time getting their local products stocked because local drinkers WANT Northwest products but cannot get them easily right now. Many popular Oregon products are not for sale here, for instance.

    – Customer service will improve dramatically because of the new focus on customers instead of on state revenue. Currently, Washington state liquor stores rank very low on most measures of customer service performance; custom orders also usually go unfilled.

    – Consumers won’t have to order hard-to-get liquor from out of state; in-state stores will either stock them or actually procure them when special-ordered (unlike current state liquor stores).

    – The state should see minimal if any revenue impact the way the initiative is designed. Some models project increased state revenue, in fact.

    – It’s difficult to make a rational argument why the state should have a monopoly on hard liquor sales in the first place, but not on beer and wine, port wine, malt liquor, etc., nor on other “vices” like cigarettes, ice cream, luxury automobiles, etc.

    – Customers will probably see better enforcement of liquor laws since the state will no longer be in the contradictory businesses of both selling liquor and enforcing liquor laws.

  17. When’s the state going to propose something that doesn’t totally fuck themselves over on revenue and allows us to get our booze? If I can buy from a normal grocery store, that’s perfectly acceptable.

  18. The point isn’t whether Trader Joe’s is 10,000 square feet or not. Of course it is. The point is whether they will have 10,000 square feet of liquor or not. Of course they won’t. I’ve been in Trader Joe’s that carry liquor, in other states, and they usually have a pathetic display of a a single rack, or less.

    That’s not what I want. Trader Joe’s is a shit chain store. IT IS NOT A LIQUOR STORE.

    What I want is what I just walked out of in California — a neighborhood shop with a great selection at fair prices — you know, a RETAIL SHOP. The kind that people in this city continually pay lip service to while only ever being able to wrap their minds around anything other than a big box retailer, which is why however hard we pretend to be hip and urbane, we only ever seem to aspire to suburbia.

    Even in California grocery stores suck donkey balls for liquor. That’s not what we are missing out on. What we are missing out on is K & L Wines in Hollywood.

    SACRAMENTO has better liquor stores than Seattle, by a wide margin. Friggin YREKA has a couple of stores that are better than most Seattle stores. That’s embarrassing.

    Big boxes are a step in the stupid direction, however. Vote no.

  20. In my opinion, one of the first things that’s likely to happen if this initiative passes is that a BevMo will open here. Ever been in a BevMo? They’re like a gazillion square feet of liquor and liquor accessories – specialty wines, barware, mixers, and liquors of almost any conceivable variety. I see their online inventory of spirits – which I cannot purchase here. They are not simply carrying 50 shelves of Malibu Rum (although they probably have that, too) – they have the 25-year-old estate rums that were bottled in small batches. And they will special order by the bottle. Their prices are several orders of magnitude below liquor costs in this state.

    I want BevMo. I could give a shit about the rest of this. I want my BevMo.

Comments are closed.