…vowing to introduce a bill in two years—that is, after the initiative amendment sunset has passed—that would allow hard liquor to be sold in stores under 10,000 square feet? You know, to help small businesses, to give independent producers a shot in specialty stores, to help locally owned producers and retailers. You don’t need to let every convenience store in the state sell hard liquor, of course, but surely you can find a way to loosen the grip of grocery giants so the little guys get a slice of the market. Also, while you’re at it, how about closing the loophole that allows Costco and other warehouse-owning grocers to bypass that 10 percent tax on distribution?
True, allowing small stores to carry liquor would require Democrats to concede that their anti-convenience-store schtick was a canard ginned up to satisfy their alliance with alcohol lobbies. But hopefully they aren’t so married to that shilltastic theater—or so caught up in their pride—that they would let it undermine their base in the long haul.
But what about the children?
My money is on Jeanne Kohl-Welles, because she’s just consistently made of grade A+ awesome. It’s gonna suck if we move from the 36th to the 34th, not having her, Mary Lou Dickerson and Reuven Carlyle. But we get a Fitzgibbon, so I guess that’s OK.
Could happen before that if they could get 2/3s.
Say require that 90 or 95% of the space be for liquor and restrict the number in any given locale. That way you get specialty stops without the horror of rum at 7/11. I bet you could get bipartisan sign off on that.
Even before that two year window, the existing state stores, all under 10,000 sq ft as far as I know, can stay open right? Good management will make a profit on boutique, craft, and high-end liquors.
@SchmuckyTheCat – my understanding was that an exception was carved out so at least some of the franchise store owners will be given an opportunity to purchase licenses. State-run stores, no.
I saw a good recommendation on Washington Beer Blog. It proposes using percentage of sales from beer/wine/liquor as the requirement. This solves the deli/convenience store problem that some folks have while allowing smaller, independent stores.
http://www.washingtonbeerblog.com/i1183-…
As long as store clerks ask ID for liquor sales, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem of relaxing the 10K feet rule.
@8, great length. Those are the guys I wish were driving the discussion. Craft distilleries, in particular, are primed to go off in a big way, but this bill snuffs them out instead.
I think it’s important to know how grocery stores sell shelf contracts, too.
I would probably set the bar a little lower — maybe 80% of sales? I want to leave room for things like mixers, glassware, barware, magazines, etc. I would really prefer that there be no limit at all — I don’t care if gas stations carry rum, but I think a deli or take-out place should be allowed to sell seven kinds of locallly distilled products if they want. DeLaurenti’s should be allowed to sell booze, and if they are over 10,000 feet (I don’t know) then the next DeLaurenti’s just starting out in a tiny space.
The answer to Dom’s question, though, is “none of them”. There will be no successful legislation to modify the initiative.
@5 and 7–
The existing store will be auctioned along with the rights to run them as liquor stores. Who buys these and what they do with them is a total unknown.
@3–
That’s the answer. And an initiative can be amended in the first two years with a 2/3 majority. Long-shot, but it’s not excluded.
@9 read some slog history for examples of how alcohol emotion and prudishness drives some people, rather than clinical evidence, logic and fact, like it should be.
The improbability of the legislature ever modifying the 10,000 sq ft rule is the primary reason I voted against this initiative. This is the type of thing that is doomed to die in committee and never even come up for a vote. I’m pro-privatization, but this initiative does not allow for the type of small neighborhood specialty stores that I want. I will now actually have to travel further to get to a liquor store, and that store will be a fucking Safeway. Fuck that shit.
And booze will likely be more expensive than it is now. Fuck that shit too.
This is the question of the day right here.
@13, On the contrary, I think this opens the floodgates for a lot more thoughtful ideas from the elected reps. They’ve been too chickenshit for 80 years because of their beholden interests in the status quo. That’s gone now. There are a lot of tweaks to the system, not just in retailing but especially in how bars and restaurants operate, that need to change. The legislature is on notice that change and modernization is ok and many legislators have some great ideas that may now see the light of day.
@2 ftw
Ladies and Gentlemen, may I preset Dominic “I vote for crap initiatives” Holden.
“Cheers”
@15
+1
I voted yes with the hope that the 10k rule will ultimately be amended. Maybe wishful thinking, but we’ll see.
The size thing really bugs me. Back in New York liquor stores were private but separately licensed. There were plenty of little mom & pop liquor stores tucked into strip malls and storefronts. It was plenty easy to get liquor and the market wasn’t run by the state or Costco.
@20, you can blame all the nimbys from last year who weren’t happy that any corner store could sell liquor. Thus the 10k requirement.
@19 See, I ultimately decided to vote no because I thought it would just be wishful thinking. Here’s hoping you are right and I’m wrong.
I am really scratching my head reading some of these comments. Costco spent millions to pass this initiative, do people really think they are just going to sit idly by and let the legislature create more competition for them or close their tax loophole? They aren’t going to protect their investment? I have heard that large corporations sometimes attempt to influence the legislative process for their own benefit.
Schmucky @15, legislators remain as beholden to the status quo as ever. We just have a different status quo now (existing 10,000+ sq ft retailers). And the legislature has every excuse to do nothing to change this — after all, it must be what the people wanted, since they voted for it! You didn’t get to put an asterisk next to your vote.
@23 Exactly. Costco was able to buy the popular vote to get what they wanted. Why stop there? Why not use the combination of lobbying and campaign contributions to get and keep the legislature in your pocket? It’s not like they’re afraid of spending money, and it’s not like the politicians won’t accept it.
Like I said, I hope I’m wrong, but at this point it looks like we’ve just traded one monopoly (the state) for another (a half-dozen large grocery chains).
The 10,000 sq ft rule is fucked. I’m sure a lot of legislators think so too. But none of them has the backbone to do anything about it.
A good compromise would be to allow stores below 10,000 sq feet to sell both MJ and alcohol.
@8, great LINK. I meant to say “great link” @10, not “great length”. I dunno what happened; maybe I’m having a stroke.
Is there a length between strokes and typos?
23, 24, and 25 beat me to it. Anyone who thinks the legislature will amend the 10,000 rule is completely delusional. Or drunk.
@28, I dunno. But it’s not really a typo; a typo would be like “lnik” or “lonk”, a slip of the finger. “Length” is a different word entirely, a near-homophone, and rather more difficult one to type, yet typed correctly. This suggests that something in my brain is not connected correctl correc correc corre corre corre DINGDINGDING psssssssssssssssss ssssss ss s.
I’m one of those California transplants who moved here and saw Washington’s liquor laws and said, WTF?? We’re one of the reasons that I-1183 passed (you’re welcome!) We know that having a corner market with a few shelves of booze behind the front counter, that stays open past 10 pm, is not the end of civilization as we know it. We also know how convenient it is to have all those little mom-and-pop markets–a lot of them one-off, non-chains, and many giving their immigrant owners a shot at making it here–on just about every corner. It’s damned convenient to be able to run down the block at midnight to grab a loaf of bread or a bag of catfood from one of them. Washington doesn’t have anywhere as many of those little corner stores because without being able to sell hard liquor, they aren’t economically viable. I am 100% in favor of fixing that as our next order of business (and if Jeanne Kohl-Welles, my fellow California transplant–I knew her when…!–is the one to do it, more power to her!!)
Bear in mind that any current contract (not state-owned) liquor store is ALREADY permitted to open a private liquor outlet in that space, even if the space (which most of them are) is much smaller than 10,000 feet. Many of those will become specialty liquor stores.
And I disagree that none of the legislators will take the issue up: we’ve proven that a majority of voters support liberalization of our Prohibition-relic liquor laws. Legislators are timid by nature, but a swing in public opinion will sway them every time. The best way to get a legislator to introduce such a bill? Talk to them. Suggest it.
@30 that’s funny.
that sort of word misplacement happens to me all the time, though. sometimes when i am thinking ahead, or have changed my mind about the sentence. often, however, when i am thinking about something else entirely, which, is pretty odd and not likely not related to strokes whatsoever. my fingers are well trained to punch out words, but it seems a slightly errant message is enough to send them on the wrong (correct) track.