Nope:

The state’s budgeting office today recommended that the Washington State Liquor Control Board not accept proposals from two companies that bid to take over its distribution center in Seattle.

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) “determined that neither proposal results in net positive financial benefit to the state or local government or meets the best interest of the state,” OFM Director Marty Brown wrote in a letter to the state’s three-member Liquor Control Board.

That link was from the Seattle Times. The reporter was Melissa Allison. It was underwritten by Costco. Not really about Costco, but they probably love this news. Costco had fought this proposed lease back in spring for fear it would complicate voters’ feelings about their liquor privatization initiative.

6 replies on “Is It Profitable to Lease the State’s Liquor Distribution System to a Private Partner?”

  1. thank you, always good to be reminded to exhale. I didn’t see why you had to name the reporter if you weren’t implying something less than ethical, etc.–but now I see that you weren’t.

  2. Another reason to vote against I-1183. At least for me. One of the few reasons Iiked 1183 was that the Sate was considering a proposal to lease the liquor distribution system to a private company – and that private company helped write the legislation that would have allowed the State to basically give away the distro system to that company. It made no financial sense and was an obvious bad deal -… one that few electeds in the State could figure out (scary in itself). The State’s budget office agrees, so that won’t be happening. Vote against 1183 – then let’s get the State legislature to write good rules that will privatize liquor sales – but rules written fairly for all, not the rules written by Costco to favor Costco over small businesses and people.

  3. @4) Glad to see you’ll defend the victimized Seattle Times, even when the Seattle Times isn’t the victim. Frank Blethen is the new Pope.

Comments are closed.