“Say Goodbye to the BYOB” in Philly Mag

[JohnL]

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?

←

I would agree with you.

Yes, the breadth and quality of BYOB's in Philadelphia is a positive by product....

I wouldn't argue that (I suspect that Ms Green isn't either).

Yes, NJ has issues with Liquor licenses (so do many states).

Interestingly, today's NY Times talks about a new book wherein an argument is made that professional licensing by states for doctors. lawyers etc are detrimental to the common good.

I am thinking of starting a new thread in the wine area because this is obviously a much larger issue beyond PA. I would argue that many states have abused the authority to "regulate" alcohol as put forth in the constitution. That power was not meant to position alcohol sales as a source of revenue--the states have gone way too far in their interpretation.

But back to Philly.

I believe that what Ms Green is saying is that for the future--the direction for the restaurant business in Philly would be better if the playing field were leveled. That the competition was more fair and open.

[JohnL]

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.

←

Holly, with all due respect! (they say this a lot on the Sopranos too).

I was being facetious--

Again, I believe that many states are abusing their "right" to regulate alcohol as put forth in the constitution. That is the real issue here.

Anyone starting a new business (especially a restaurant) should be able to do so on their terms (in the end the consumer's)--with minimal intervention by local, state or federal government.

Especially insidious are financial barriers--fees, taxes etc.

Local communities should have a say in things like proximity to schools zoning, drinking age etc and anyone selling alcohol of any kind should be held to some regulation.

The current situation in PA is not the result of a "free" market determined by an open marketplace. The PLCB is basically dependent upon a "dictatorship"--luckily the current dictator is somewhat benevolent.

It could be argued that many current BYO's would be even more successful if they had the option to offer alcohol and/or wine service--again their choice!

Without facing absurdly high fees and tons of red tape.

[serpentine]

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.

I don't think it's of no consequence, or I wouldn't have posted. Sorry to interrupt your lecture on libertarianism, state's rights, and free trade. Carry on.

[Mano]

But back to Philly.

I believe that what Ms Green is saying is that for the future--the direction for the restaurant business  in Philly would be better if  the playing field were leveled. That the competition was more fair and open.

←

You may need to read the article or re-read it, as that is not what Ms. Green is saying. If it were, then I wouldn't have bothered to rant.

Ms. Green was very clear about what she was saying, there was no reading between the lines in her commontary.