“Say Goodbye to the BYOB” in Philly Mag

[JohnL]

Sandy!

I was wondering when you'd check in.

As always --great information--thanks.

I think that the point Ms Green was trying to make (I haven't read her piece) is that more BYOB's is not the optimum direction for the Philadelphia restaurant scene to be moving toward.

The fact is, the BYOB situation is a result of the state of affairs not a result of market conditions.

While there may be much good in a healthy BYOB scene (I would argue that this is over rated) the fact is, development of restaurants that serve alcohol is being hindered by the regulations.

There is simply no reason, I can see, why there should not be a more level playing field for restaurateurs and customers.

If consumers want BYOB's then restaurateurs will tap into that desire. If restaurateurs want to offer wine service then they should be able to do so.

I say--let the market place decide.

[Capaneus]

"After reading through this thread I have a few points.

One can attack the messenger here (I am not familiar with Aliza Green) or come up with some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom-- but I find it more productive to deal with the points and issues she raises."

I thought Greg S's point was well explained and very clear. If her views are slanted because of her advertisers complaints, then the messenger deserves to be attacked.

I love Byo's , not so much for the obvious bargain they represent with respects to savings on wine, but because I get so tired of poorly chosen wine lists, bad storage, uninformed staff, excessive pricing, etc. Let me just bring my own. Yes, there are exceptions and I do not mind paying reasonable mark up to try some different wines I may not come across.

If you feel severly restricted at byo's, then don't go to them.

To make the claim that the byo culture is holding philly back as a serious restaurant town is absurd. So, the food would be better at D'Jango, Marigold, Piff, etc. if they had a wine list? Ridiculous.

Vive le BYO!!!!!!!!!

←

First regarding Ms Green. The points she was making deserve to be addressed at face value. Attempting to construct a possible conspiracy to slander her motives is dubious at best and with a lack of any evidence futile. Really, all you would be creating is a moot point for use as a red herring. So really, who cares about her or her magazine's motives--it makes sense to debate the content of what she says.

Second, I agree that wine service in many restaurants is poor and that there are many instances of high markups. I also am seeing many diverse and well priced lists as well as good service (glasses etc). The current trend for many places is in the positive direction.

Third, my whole argument here is not that BYO's are necessarily bad nor that restaurant's with wine service are necessarily good. My point is restaurateurs in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) are limited by wine laws. Would you argue that because of economic factors, say, the owners of Marigold should be denied the choice to serve wine in their establishment .

Would you argue that only a select handful of well heeled and well connected people should be able to own restaurants that serve wine?

Again, I am arguing for choice.

If a restaurant owner wants to operate as a BYOB that's fine with me.

Finally, a BYOB "culture" is fine as long as it is a result of a free marketplace. I can see much benefit to a BYOB near ,say, Penn or Temple.

Also, would not some increased competition possibly create a healthier situation wherein wine lists around town would moderate somewhat?

So, if you are making a case for BYOB's that is fine. If you are making a case for a situation where a chef/owner, restaurateur has his or her hands tied by restrictive liquor laws, preventing them from offering their customers a wine or alcoholic beverage service, then I would love to hear your case!

←

My case entirely ignores the restaurateur's freedom. I have come to like Pennsylvanias restrictive laws because they have created an environment in which I can drink and eat far above my means or station. The regulatory environment is what it is. The fact is that there is a much longer-standing environment that produce a world in which $3000 premiers crus are out of my financial reach. I would like that changed, too.

But in the meantime, far from preventing people from opening restaurants, folks are in fact being permitted to come up with a "starter" restaurant concept - the BYO - which is only viable because better-capitalized places are hindered. If you take away the PLCB barriers, you won't see the democratization of the restaurant experience. In essence, you'll be restoring the conditions that led to overpriced wine lists in the first place. You argue about competitive pressure to bring down wine list prices? For the first time in my twenty years in Philly, we got that! And it's the BYOB explosion that's providing it.

[JohnL]

"After reading through this thread I have a few points.

One can attack the messenger here (I am not familiar with Aliza Green) or come up with some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom-- but I find it more productive to deal with the points and issues she raises."

I thought Greg S's point was well explained and very clear. If her views are slanted because of her advertisers complaints, then the messenger deserves to be attacked.

I love Byo's , not so much for the obvious bargain they represent with respects to savings on wine, but because I get so tired of poorly chosen wine lists, bad storage, uninformed staff, excessive pricing, etc. Let me just bring my own. Yes, there are exceptions and I do not mind paying reasonable mark up to try some different wines I may not come across.

If you feel severly restricted at byo's, then don't go to them.

To make the claim that the byo culture is holding philly back as a serious restaurant town is absurd. So, the food would be better at D'Jango, Marigold, Piff, etc. if they had a wine list? Ridiculous.

Vive le BYO!!!!!!!!!

←

First regarding Ms Green. The points she was making deserve to be addressed at face value. Attempting to construct a possible conspiracy to slander her motives is dubious at best and with a lack of any evidence futile. Really, all you would be creating is a moot point for use as a red herring. So really, who cares about her or her magazine's motives--it makes sense to debate the content of what she says.

Second, I agree that wine service in many restaurants is poor and that there are many instances of high markups. I also am seeing many diverse and well priced lists as well as good service (glasses etc). The current trend for many places is in the positive direction.

Third, my whole argument here is not that BYO's are necessarily bad nor that restaurant's with wine service are necessarily good. My point is restaurateurs in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) are limited by wine laws. Would you argue that because of economic factors, say, the owners of Marigold should be denied the choice to serve wine in their establishment .

Would you argue that only a select handful of well heeled and well connected people should be able to own restaurants that serve wine?

Again, I am arguing for choice.

If a restaurant owner wants to operate as a BYOB that's fine with me.

Finally, a BYOB "culture" is fine as long as it is a result of a free marketplace. I can see much benefit to a BYOB near ,say, Penn or Temple.

Also, would not some increased competition possibly create a healthier situation wherein wine lists around town would moderate somewhat?

So, if you are making a case for BYOB's that is fine. If you are making a case for a situation where a chef/owner, restaurateur has his or her hands tied by restrictive liquor laws, preventing them from offering their customers a wine or alcoholic beverage service, then I would love to hear your case!

←

My case entirely ignores the restaurateur's freedom. I have come to like Pennsylvanias restrictive laws because they have created an environment in which I can drink and eat far above my means or station. The regulatory environment is what it is. The fact is that there is a much longer-standing environment that produce a world in which $3000 premiers crus are out of my financial reach. I would like that changed, too.

But in the meantime, far from preventing people from opening restaurants, folks are in fact being permitted to come up with a "starter" restaurant concept - the BYO - which is only viable because better-capitalized places are hindered. If you take away the PLCB barriers, you won't see the democratization of the restaurant experience. In essence, you'll be restoring the conditions that led to overpriced wine lists in the first place. You argue about competitive pressure to bring down wine list prices? For the first time in my twenty years in Philly, we got that! And it's the BYOB explosion that's providing it.

←

Gee your "case" ignores everybody's freedom.

Even your retail prices are higher than they should be:

30% mark up plus 18% flood tax plus a per case handling charge plus sales tax.

little or no competition, union influence it all adds up.

So you are paying too much for that bottle of wine you are bringing to the restaurant.

No wonder most savvy wine buyers head to New Jersey (and believe me they have their own problems--we all do).

(that hypothetical $3000 first growth will be several hundred bucks more in PA).

You refer to "starter" restaurants. A restaurant is a restaurant is a.....

Again, I think that BYOB's have a place and I certainly see a point in your argument about the overall price of a meal plus wine however, I doubt there are many folks who "like restrictive laws."

I also bet that most of those BYOB restaurant owners would opt for a wine service if they had a chance.

[KatieLoeb]

(that hypothetical $3000 first growth will be several hundred bucks more in PA).

This isn't always true. The PLCB is the largest wholesale purchaser of wine and spirits in the world. That muscle works for other items besides the Chairman's Selections.

As an example - try pricing a bottle of Dom Perignon right around New Years in Jersey and then in PA. PA is usually cheaper by ten or 15 bucks.

Between the Chairman's Selection and the declassification of some Special Order products to listed, the "border bleed" to NJ and DE has been staunched. In fact I know folks from NJ and DE that now come to PA to buy some wines!

If you want to talk about how many times over we'd paid to rebuild Johnstown since 1936 (at a usurious 18%!!), go pour yourself a big 'ole glass of wine and we can debate about that for hours...

[Holly Moore]

For the first year or so Holly Moore's Upstairs Cafe ran as a BYOB. This was in the late 70s early 80s. We opened that way because we were on a limited budget and could not afford a liquor license.

Things went ok. We were often packed and almost breaking even. The waiters made great money. I didn't.

Then on a lonely, dreary, almost empty Monday night a party of six business types made it to the top of the stairs. They found out we didn't serve liquor. All were fine except for one a-hole who had to have his martini. He turned the entire party about face and down the stairs, out the door. I was out a $150 or so check (1980 prices).

The next day I called around, found a lawyer selling liquor licenses, found a semi-loan shark financing company recommended by the lawyer and got me a liquor license. Within a few months our sales doubled and we started making a decent profit.

I'm sure BYO's of today have similar problems with out of town conventioneers and the like. But the good news is that there are so many locals willing to tote along a bottle or two. I think that the restaurant story of the last five years is not Starr's new restaurants but the growth and acceptance of great BYO's. That defines Philadelphia Dining more than Steven Starr.

In a way the BYO's are a mini Restaurant Renaissance. Less expensive to open up. Less emphasis on mega-dollar decor. More focus on substance. Owner operated. Chef owner. All good.

[philadining]

Gee your "case" ignores everybody's freedom.

I don't think anybody's pushing for more state control. Like it or not, there seems to be little indication that the PLCB is going away anytime soon, despite active lobbying from interests much stronger than the refined-dining bloc.

There have been restrictive liquor laws in PA for, like, ever. There have been BYOBs in Philly for quite some time, the baseline conditions in PA have been the same for years. OK, the market price of liquor licenses has skyrocketed, but not through any change in policy by the PLCB. There are lots of BYOBs serving excellent food in New Jersey, far from the death-grip of state controlled wine sales. It seems to be that the recent flowering of the scene has been spurred by something else.

Most of the new BYOBs are neighborhood places, catering to neighborhood people, generating loyal regulars and only on occasion generating the kind of buzz that draws masses of tourists. So talking about whether the BYOB status of a 30 seat restaurant is convenient to out-of-town visitors is somewhat moot. Those places live and die based on local, regular traffic.

I doubt anyone's going to argue against having choice, but a restaurant having a liquor license removes one of my choices: to simply enjoy an inexpensive wine from my own collection. Even the kindest corkage fees make that kind of thing ludicrous.

Sure, a well-thought-out wine and drink selection can be an added pleasure, but I can say from my own experience that I've discovered more new wines, drunk more interesting varieties, and just generally drunk more wine, by several orders of magnitude, at BYOBs than at restaurants with extensive wine lists. Personally I would like to continue that pattern. Wine carriers that hold two or three bottles are neither expensive nor cumbersome, it's not difficult to bring a few bottles along to a BYOB so as to have some alternatives when ordering, or to enjoy a variety over the course of the meal. I have on more than one occasion opened, 2, 3, 4 bottles of wine over the course of a dinner for two, leaving a good portion of it for the staff. That might seem excessive, except that it STILL cost me less than a single bottle at Striped Bass.

As already mentioned, it's sadly not unusual to see 3 and 4 fold mark-ups on wine lists around here. Sorry, for me that doesn't provide me with more choice, an opportunity to have a sparkler to start, a glass of white with apps and a more robust red later in the meal. It provides me with an occasion to jealously ration the precious sips of the glass or two I can afford.

Even your retail prices are higher than they should be:

30% mark up plus 18% flood tax plus a per case handling charge plus sales tax.

little or no competition, union influence it all adds up.

So you are paying too much for that bottle of wine you are bringing to the restaurant.

No wonder most savvy wine buyers head to New Jersey

These days there are loads of excellent bargains at the PLCB stores, and the really savvy wine shoppers are coming FROM New Jersey and Delaware to check out the Chariman's Selections. But that's another topic...

As others have already noted, it's not a black and white issue: BYOBs aren't stunting the local restaurant scene, but at the same time, many of us are welcoming the small chef-driven places with a similar aesthetic that DO serve drinks, like Gayle, Ansill, and Southwark. And I'd agree that the BYOBs are driving some of that creativity and also putting pressure on those smaller places to keep wine prices under control.

It's not necessarily cynical calculation or pandering to advertisers that inspires someone write or publish a controversial article. It's a more entertaining read to have someone state a bold thesis, even if you disagree with it. It got us talking didn't it?!?

I don't happen to think that BYOBs are a dead end for the Philly dining scene. I suspect that they will continue to be an interesting and stimulating aspect of the larger picture. But at the same time, it's worth discussing...

[Capaneus]

Gee your "case" ignores everybody's freedom.

Even your retail prices are higher than they should be:

30% mark up plus 18% flood tax plus a per case handling charge plus sales tax.

little or no competition, union influence it all adds up.

So you are paying too much for that bottle of wine you are bringing to the restaurant.

No wonder most savvy wine buyers head to New Jersey (and believe me they have their own problems--we all do).

(that hypothetical $3000 first growth will be several hundred bucks more in PA).

You refer to "starter" restaurants. A restaurant is a restaurant is a.....

Again, I think that BYOB's have a place and I certainly see a point in your argument about the overall price of a meal plus wine however, I doubt there are many folks who "like restrictive laws."

I also bet that most of those BYOB restaurant owners would opt for a wine service if they had a chance.

←

Everybody's "freedom" to do what? The system as it existed here - and the systems that still exists most places - certainly curtailed the "freedom" of a large segment of the population to enjoy a good meal with a good bottle. Under the current system, assorted restaurateurs are "free" to operate a business under the rules extant - or not. The state, of course, is, as always, "free" to regulate said businesses.

I'll note that the only constituency continually carping about the situation are the owners of licensed restaurants. Not, I again note, because they are less "free", but because their revenue stream has thinned. Which Libertarians tend to mix up, but really...

My widdle heart bleedeth not.

As for most BYO owners opting for a license... There are no immigration restrictions over across the river. They still stay. There is no compulsion of any kind to stay in business in Philadelphia. Still they do. I am willing to bet that the failure rate of BYOs in Philadelphia is lower than the failure rate of full-service restaurants in places where everyone needs to start out with a wine cellar, if only because the initial capital outlay needed is so much less.

As for the cost of wine in Pa... Yes, the retail is a bit higher. But of course at a licensed restaurant they won't charge me retail. So my $800 '82 Chateau Margaux becomes $3000 at LBF. Seems to me that the trade-off would be worthwhile, from my perspective. Not to mention that the Chairman's Selection program actually allows me to sample many wines at less than what would be retail elsewhere.

The upshot is that any regulatory framework will favor someone. The current Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board one favors, at this point, everyone but licensed restaurants. O-tay by me. Let Hayek and Rand rot, far as I'm concerned.

[KatieLoeb]

I also believe that the government (state or local) has no business being "involved" in any consumer business. With all due respect to Katie, "regulate" does not mean "take over and run the business in question."

Those claiming that BYOB's are beneficial from a financial standpoint should be taking a stand against a system that prevents/limits competition.

←

JohnL:

Where'd I say anything positive about regulation? I'd rather not have to deal with a non-competitive monopoly that gives me no discount incentive as a large "secondary" wholesale purchaser either. But I have no choice and given what the system was, it has improved tremendously for the retail consumer under Chairman Newman's tenure. Believe me, I've had this discussion with the Chairman more than once. But it's a legislative and taxation issue to a great extent, and not necessarily within his direct control.

I'm a Libertarian at heart just like you. But I have to make the best of the situation I deal with on a professional level every day. So I have to hunt a little harder. Makes me that much happier when I find something great at a great price.

[MarketStEl]

There have been restrictive liquor laws in PA for, like, ever.  There have been BYOBs in Philly for quite some time, the baseline conditions in PA have been the same for years. OK, the market price of liquor licenses has skyrocketed, but not through any change in policy by the PLCB.  There are lots of BYOBs serving excellent food in New Jersey, far from the death-grip of  state controlled wine sales.  It seems to be that the recent flowering of the scene has been spurred by something else.

Most of the new BYOBs are neighborhood places, catering to neighborhood people, generating loyal regulars and only on occasion generating the kind of buzz that draws masses of tourists. So talking about whether the BYOB status of a 30 seat restaurant is convenient to out-of-town visitors is somewhat moot. Those places live and die based on local, regular traffic.

←

A book I recommend highly every chance I get:

"The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community" by Ray Oldenburg (Marlowe & Company, 1999, third edition).

This classic, which first appeared in the late 1970s, is an attempt to figure out why American lives are so fragmented and Americans' sense of community so frayed. The preface (available on Amazon.com; click the link above, then choose "Look Inside" to see it) makes it clear what Oldenburg thinks is the reason: our postwar suburban landscape has eliminated the sorts of businesses that attract a regular neighborhood clientele that often just "hangs out" there, socializing informally with friends and neighbors. These businesses -- Oldenburg calls them "third places," being neither work nor home -- provide the glue that turns physical settlements into true communities.*

Fine dining establishments usually do not qualify as "third places," because their prices are such that most cannot afford to patronize them regularly.

Diners, OTOH, do, because they are affordable enough that neighbors can--and do--patronize them repeatedly.

(Fast-food places do not because even though they are extremely affordable, they are not designed to encourage lingering.)

It seems that some, maybe even most, of these BYOBs have tried--with some success--to bring the elements of the "third place" to fine dining. Most of these places are just pricey enough that they won't draw much of a working-class or college/grad-student clientele, but they may become "third places" for affluent urbanites.

Leaving the food aside for a minute--and I realize that we're really here for the food--to the extent that these new BYOBs add an extra degree of variety and richness to the "third places" already extant in Center City, I would think that everyone should encourage their development and growth.

*I realize that all of these establishments can also be found in suburbia. However, the fact that the typical Auto Age suburbanite must make a special effort to drive to them--he can't just "pop 'round" to the bar or coffeeshop--makes them no longer useful as third places.

[MarketStEl]

Where'd I say anything positive about regulation? I'd rather not have to deal with a non-competitive monopoly that gives me no discount incentive as a large "secondary" wholesale purchaser either. But I have no choice and given what the system was, it has improved tremendously for the retail consumer under Chairman Newman's tenure.  Believe me, I've had this discussion with the Chairman more than once.  But it's a legislative and taxation issue to a great extent, and not necessarily within his direct control.

←

I refer you to my post upthread.

Tell your friends in Allentown, Lancaster, Harrisburg and Scranton to write their legislators.

Better still, tell your friends in Coudersport, Shippensburg and Crawford.

If you know any, that is.

[serpentine]

...some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom...

It's neither a secret nor an implication of conspiracy to say that Philadelphia and other similar glossy regional magazines (not just in this area!) are beholden to their advertisers to the extent that content is...affected.

[aaronwcpa]

As somebody who really rarely drinks, an occasional wine, I welcome BYOBs. A BYOB serves a somewhat different purpose. It is usually run by couples, families, not seeking huge profits, just making a comfortable living. You will find very few BYOBs chains. I do not count pizza parlors in the BYOB class.

As a former subscriber, on and off since the early 70s, to Philadelphia Magazine I agree that advertising drives certain sections of the magazine, a claim that the magazine will deny.

BYBs will and should survive no matter what the liguor laws may be.

[JohnL]

...some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom...

It's neither a secret nor an implication of conspiracy to say that Philadelphia and other similar glossy regional magazines (not just in this area!) are beholden to their advertisers to the extent that content is...affected.

←

You may be correct. You may not be.

My point is--your point is moot.

For the sake of the discussion on the topic at hand

the motivation real or assumed (whatever) of the writer is of no consequence.

[JohnL]

As somebody who really rarely drinks, an occasional wine, I welcome BYOBs. A BYOB serves a somewhat different purpose. It is usually run by couples, families, not seeking huge profits, just making a comfortable living. You will find very few BYOBs chains. I do not count pizza parlors in the BYOB class.

As a former subscriber, on and off since the early 70s, to Philadelphia Magazine I agree that advertising drives certain sections of the magazine, a claim that the magazine will deny.

BYBs will and should survive no matter what the liguor laws may be.

←

No one would argue that BYOB's should (or shouldn't)exist--I certainly am not nor is Ms Green.

Your point applies to restaurants that sell wine etc as well--most are, in fact, owned by

couples. families etc.

The point here is--the laws in PA have created a situation where restaurant owners small, or large have to resort to the sleazy semi legal activity Mr Moore had to resort to should they want to provide a service that most restaurants just about anywhere can and do provide.

[JohnL]

For the first year or so Holly Moore's Upstairs Cafe ran as a BYOB.  This was in the late 70s early 80s.  We opened that way because we were on a limited budget and could not afford a liquor license.

Things went ok.  We were often packed and almost breaking even.  The waiters made great money.  I didn't.

Then on a lonely, dreary, almost empty Monday night a party of six business types made it to the top of the stairs.  They found out we didn't serve liquor.  All were fine except for one a-hole who had to have his martini.  He turned the entire party about face and down the stairs, out the door.  I was out a $150 or so check (1980 prices).

The next day I called around, found a lawyer selling liquor licenses, found a semi-loan shark financing company recommended by the lawyer and got me a liquor license.  Within a few months our sales doubled and we started making a decent profit. 

I'm sure BYO's of today have similar problems with out of town conventioneers and the like.  But the good news is that there are so many locals willing to tote along a bottle or two.  I think that the restaurant story of the last five years is not Starr's new restaurants but the growth and acceptance of great BYO's.  That defines Philadelphia Dining more than Steven Starr.

In a way the BYO's are a mini Restaurant Renaissance.  Less expensive to open up.  Less emphasis on mega-dollar decor.  More focus on substance.  Owner operated.  Chef owner.  All good.

←

I don't see where this is about BYO's vs No BYO's.

You make a case that you could not make money as a pure BYO.

So you did what you had to do (as they say on the Sopranos).

Then you say BYO's are a mini "restaurant renaissance."--the reasons you site apply to myriad restaurants that do serve alcohol.

It is a shame that Philadelphia dining is "defined" by either Steve Starr or BYO's --that's limiting isn't it?

As a potential restaurant owner (hypothetically) would you prefer to have the choice of serving alcohol without resorting to illegal activity or having to pay a fortune?

As a consumer--is it better to have a broad and diverse menu of restaurant choices that include Mr Starr's operations as well as others AND BYO's.?

I think that is all that Ms Green seems to be arguing.

[JohnL]

(that hypothetical $3000 first growth will be several hundred bucks more in PA).

This isn't always true. The PLCB is the largest wholesale purchaser of wine and spirits in the world. That muscle works for other items besides the Chairman's Selections.

As an example - try pricing a bottle of Dom Perignon right around New Years in Jersey and then in PA. PA is usually cheaper by ten or 15 bucks.

Between the Chairman's Selection and the declassification of some Special Order products to listed, the "border bleed" to NJ and DE has been staunched. In fact I know folks from NJ and DE that now come to PA to buy some wines!

If you want to talk about how many times over we'd paid to rebuild Johnstown since 1936 (at a usurious 18%!!), go pour yourself a big 'ole glass of wine and we can debate about that for hours...

←

Katie

I don't doubt that you guys at the PLCB are doing a good job considering the circumstances.

I don't doubt that you can cite some favorable pricing situations here and there.

However

I would love for someone to present a reasoned argument in support of state (or federal) run businesses and how we consumers would be better off if the government (state or local) would be running any business--liquor, how about appliances or clothing or food?

The most sweeping example I would offer as a counter is the late Soviet Union.

I recall those photos of the "wide" selection of stuff and prices at the old GUM department store.

If you folks are trying to make that argument offering the proliferation of BYO's as the over riding benefit then I give up!

IMOP the little guy ought to be able to compete with Mr Starr (and others) BYO or alcohol --on the terms he or she chooses.

Am i nuts here?

[mrbigjas]

IMOP the little guy ought to be able to compete with Mr Starr (and others) BYO or alcohol --on the terms he or she chooses.

Am i nuts here?

i don't think you are.

[Holly Moore]

The point here is--the laws in PA have created a situation where restaurant owners small, or large have to resort to the sleazy semi legal activity Mr Moore had to resort to should they want to provide a service that most restaurants just about anywhere can and do provide.

←

It was not the system that forced me to the money lenders. It was my lack of funds. And I survived, kneecaps intact, owning a more profitable restaurant.

The liquor license became an asset. Just like a taxicab medallion. Once I owned one I, and any other restaurantuers in Philadelphia, did not want to see our asset value dilluted by having the state issue more Philadelphia county liquor licenses.

[Holly Moore]

I don't see where this is about BYO's vs No BYO's.

You make a case that you could not make money as a pure BYO.

So you did what you had to do (as they say on the Sopranos).

Then you say BYO's are a mini "restaurant renaissance."--the reasons you site apply to myriad restaurants that do serve alcohol.

It is a shame that Philadelphia dining is "defined" by either Steve Starr or BYO's --that's limiting isn't it?

As a potential restaurant owner (hypothetically) would you prefer to have the choice of serving alcohol without resorting to illegal activity or having to pay a fortune?

As a consumer--is it better to have a broad and diverse menu of restaurant choices that include Mr Starr's operations as well as others AND BYO's.?

I think that is all that Ms Green seems to be arguing.

←

First off I was not forced to resort to illegal activity. The interest on my loan was high but legal. The payments were weekly - odd, but legal. I paid off the loan in a couple of years and we went our own ways after that.

Philadelphia dining is not defined by either Starr or BYO's. There is too much good food happening here beyond those. My point is that the story of Philadelphia Dining right now - the "what's happening" - has been, in my opinion at least, the BYO's. But that may just be 2004 and 2005 news.

I'm not sure why BYO's elect to be BYO's. A restaurant is more profitable when it sells booze than when it does not. Logic dictates that any restaurant at that level of cuisine should prefer to serve liquor.

It could be that they couldn't afford to open with a license. But when you look at the success of the BYO's that have made it, they can afford one after a year or two of operation.

It could be that they can not justify the cost of liquor liability insurance. I'm assuming that since the BYO is pouring the customer's wine they have to carry some level of liquor liability insurance but perhaps not as much as a licensed restaurant. Liquor liability insurance is very expensive.

It could be that local resident's organization will not permit any new liquor licenses to come into the area. South Street is a case in point. Even though legally a restaurant opening in the South Street area could pull a license from anywhere in Philadelphia county, the Society Hill Resident's Association, as far as I know, will not allow any new liquor licenses to be transferred into their community.

Similarly it could be the Resident's association or a near by school or church will fight any new liquor licenses.

Or it could be that the restaurant believes it will get more customers if they permit customers to carry their own wine.

Or it could be that a small chef operated restaurant doesn't want to put up with all the hassles a liquor license and beverage service entails. Rather, he/she just wants to focus on the food.

[philadining]

I would argue again that BYOBs are not merely pearls formed by an irritated oyster. There are BYOBs in areas free from state-run liquor authorities. Getting a liquor license is an expensive and/or cumbersome process almost anywhere. There were BYOBs in years past, but in the last several years, the BYOB scene in Philly has really taken off. I would suggest that that particular recent popularity has little to do the PLCB.

And sure, we can debate the merits of the State controlling anything, but that's neither here nor there in this particular argument. The PLCB exists. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. Given that, what do we think about the BYOB scene?

Did you really feel that Green's message in "Say Goodbye to the BYOB" was that it's all good? Does her line “They represent the entirely wrong direction for our city’s culinary future” convey feelings that they are a lovely, valued part of our big happy mosaic?

It's an old journalistic trick to say something that boldly defies the conventional wisdom, in fact Philly Mag features a column called "the Contrarian" that does that pretty much every month. That doesn't mean they are pandering to advertisers, they're just provoking a debate. There's really nothing too scandalous about that, it's standard operating procedure at even the most respected publications. It's a means to make a point. It's really much less interesting to read a piece that hedges and equivocates and goes to great lengths to be extra-sensitive to everyone's feelings.

And then we agree and disagree in conversations over the water cooler, and here. Voila! the article has done what it was meant to!

[wkl]

"Katie

I don't doubt that you guys at the PLCB are doing a good job considering the circumstances.

I don't doubt that you can cite some favorable pricing situations here and there"

Katie doesn't work for the PLCB.

"I would love for someone to present a reasoned argument in support of state (or federal) run businesses and how we consumers would be better off if the government (state or local) would be running any business--liquor, how about appliances or clothing or food?"

No one is making the claim, YIPEE for the PLCB, because now we can have BYOB's.

I like byob's because I can bring my own juice to a restaurant, try as many bottles as I want, and the cost is under control. It doesn't mean I won't go to places that have decent wine lists. I don't think it's anymore complicated than that.

[herbacidal]

I don't doubt that you can cite some favorable pricing situations here and there.

Let me back philadining up and say that Katie does not work for PLCB.

She is most definitely not a Trojan shill.

However

I would love for someone to present a reasoned argument in support of state (or federal) run businesses and how we consumers would be better off if the government (state or local) would be running any business--liquor, how about appliances or clothing or food?

The most sweeping example I would offer as a counter is the late Soviet Union.

I recall those photos of the "wide" selection of stuff and prices at the old GUM department store.

As mentioned, no one is arguing that a state run system is superior,

either for liquor and alcohol or anything else.

Personally I do feel in some cases and industries, I would say that may be true.

But that argument will be made by me in person and not here.

If you folks are trying to make that argument offering the proliferation of BYO's as the over riding benefit then I give up!

IMOP the little guy ought to be able to compete with Mr Starr (and others) BYO or alcohol --on the terms he or she chooses.

Am i nuts here?

←

I read sentiment on this thread to be saying:

BYOB's are the very well-received byproduct of having a state system that is set up as it is.

The less well-received results include:

prices that were out of line with prices in neighboring areas

service that often was not the most customer-friendly

and random others I can't think of right now

And the two less well-received results mentioned above have been drastically improved in recent years, which is of course part of the current praise given towards the PLCB.

We do need to distinguish between a state-run system and an expensive liquor license system. They are not necessarily one and the same, although in this case they are to an extent.

If my information is up to date (which may well be false) NJ liquor licenses are approximately 10 times as expensive as what I believe the current Philadelphia County liquor license price is, approximately $65,000. IMHO, they're the reason behind the BYOB growth in South Jersey, and also the reason why any restaurant that does have a liquor license is huge compared to a BYOB, even more so than in Philly.

Can Rich or anyone else give an accurate statement as to the current NJ license

price?

Edited March 2, 2006 by herbacidal (log)

[Capaneus]

"I would love for someone to present a reasoned argument in support of state (or federal) run businesses and how we consumers would be better off if the government (state or local) would be running any business--liquor, how about appliances or clothing or food?"

No one is making the claim, YIPEE for the PLCB, because now we can have BYOB's.

I like byob's because I can bring my own juice to a restaurant, try as many bottles as I want, and the cost is under control. It doesn't mean I won't go to places that have decent wine lists. I don't think it's anymore complicated than that.

←

Actually, I am making the case that the PLCB is, in Philadelphia's particular situation, both a good thing and responsible (to a point) for the current rise of the BYOBs. And, in that regard, yeepee ideed.

As far as I can tell, the Philadelpia BYOBs exist for two reasons: because it is too expensive for a new restaurateur to start a licensed restaurant in the city; and because an unlicensed restaurant is, somehow, a better business proposition here than it would be elsewhere. The first condition is simplest to tie to the Board: Philadelphia licenses are very expensive, and a wine cellar is somewhat more expensive to lay down here than it would be elsewhere.

But the second part of the equation is often ignored. Because wine is a) expensive for a restaurateur(relative to restaurant situations elsewhere) and b) a relatively scarce commodity because of the limited number of licenses, Philadelphia wine lists are relatively overpriced. For a very long time, that was a bad thing for all diners in the city, but something that only serious wine drinkers actively chafed against, because the high prices and bad service at PLCB stores kept the casual drinkers, largely, from becoming too involved with the sweet juice. The serious collectors, though, had cellars of their own they would have liked to use, but could not - corkage was an almost unknown courtesy in the city, with some restaurants actually spreading the urban myth that it was illegal.

In recent years, however, the PLCB has become, first, more user friendly; and, in the last two years, the Chairman's Selections program has actually made it attractive to many of us. As a result, the number of casual wine drinkers in this city that have made the leap to more serious addiction has shot up. That is the case, at least, in my own acquaintanceship. These people started frequenting the relatively small number of BYOBs that existed three-four years ago. That increase in customer base made a BYO a more attractive business proposition, so, suddenly, young talented chefs who would, once, have had to either find a place in the relatively small number of quality licensed establishments in town, or migrate elsewhere - which most did - had a viable alternative business plan. And once a handful of them, led by Django, demonstrated there was, indeed, an audience waiting to be tapped for chefs willing to take risks, these new BYOBs became more and more interesting over the last couple of years.

At least, that's how I see the development of the phenomenon. Admittedly, I lack the numbers to substantiate this, but I believe it accounts both for the sudden increase in these places' numbers, which happened in tandem with the improvements in the Labor Board; and for the non-existence of similar trends in other food-friendly cities.

And to take this a step further, I believe we are now witnessing a second-wave development: edgy, trendy places like Ansill, Amada and Gayle, which have good, thoughtful wine lists, but are seeking to tap into the customer base developed by the BYOBs. They are, to my mind, a development that would not have been possible, or at least very likely, if the BYOs had not, first, increased the numbers, and decreased the age, of the dining population of Philadelphia.

So yeah. I like the much-reviled PLCB. Much of my liking for it depends on the nearby availability of NJ and Delaware, which palliate most of its worse weaknesses, but in that context - for us in Philadelphia, that is, as against the rest of Pennsylvania - I think the Board is an excellent thing.

[MarketStEl]

Since JohnL brought it up:

Speaking broadly, state ownership is inferior to private ownership when it comes to satisfying customer needs, but there are always exceptions to the rule, said exceptions depending on how the state views its role.

In the case of booze, I offer you the New Hampshire Liquor Commission as a counterexample.

It is so, however, mainly because the state has a beggar-thy-neighbor approach to raising revenue, arising in large part from the electorate's aversion to the thought of a broad-based state tax (NH is the only one of the 50 states with neither a sales tax nor an income tax, and any politician who proposes instituting either signs his political death warrant the moment he or she does do).

[wkl]

"Actually, I am making the case that the PLCB is, in Philadelphia's particular situation, both a good thing and responsible (to a point) for the current rise of the BYOBs. And, in that regard, yeepee ideed."

Sorry for putting words in your mouth.

I don't share your enthusiasm for the PLCB, however.