Opus One at your local Acme?

[Jeff L]

Today's Inquirer reports that Wegman's wants to sell beer wine and spirits in its cafes. Acme markets announced that their "top regulatory issue this year would be to sell beer, wine and alcohol at its Pennsylvania stores".

The article goes on to say how distributors would be hurt in this scenario but also quotes Rendell's spokesperson Kate Phillips as saying "He's not looking to change the law now".

Why should the Commonwealth want to promote consumer convenience let alone competition in our fair state? After reading many posts on the topic of liquor privatization, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that this is merely a pipe dream that will never happen. Just when you thought good things were happening (wine-wise anyway) in the lcb, Rendel does his end around with Newman and brings in Conti as CEO.

[matthewj]

This is what I have always said that we needed, money talks in politics. If Wegmans, Target, Wholefoods realize the money lost not selling wine and beer in their stores in Pa they will eventually push to change policy, because it takes money and big guns to wake up bueracracy. Just wit until they start fighting the Pa Government for infringing on Comerce, with a direct monopoly.

Edited January 11, 2007 by matthewj (log)

[MarketStEl]

If you were thinking lawsuit, Matthew, it wouldn't fly, because the 21st Amendment to the Constitution -- the amendment that repealed the 18th (Prohibition) -- specifically leaves regulation of the sale, manufacture and distribution of alcohol within state borders to the states. The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is thereby overridden in this specific case.

Which does not mean that Wegmans, Acme, Whole Foods, Costco (imagine...Two-Buck Chuck in Pennsylvania!), et al., shouldn't pull out all their big guns to fight this battle. It's just that all the fighting will take place within Pennsylvania's borders.

[Jeff L]

Matthew makes a strong point and one that I agree with. Typically all we consumers can do is complain and rant here and in other forums about how ridiculous this system is to no avail.

The idea of an organized, well heeled corporate front going up against the PALCB is encouraging but I think ultimately one destined to fail. There is no question that food chains in the state stand to make significant profit on the sale of alcoholic beverages. The question I have is if any realistic alliance of chains can happen and if it does, how much money will they commit to this uphill fight in Harrisburg?

[matthewj]

I remember a supreme court case, last year about Wineries, and on line sales of their wines, although the supreme court dodged a bullet. I think that if enough money is push or pulled in either direction, that someone has to budge. Even if a revised law privatizing wine would be a boon. I realize the repeal of the Volstead act, 21th amendment put the burden on the state, and the state is not willing to budge I think that if enough money is lost by corporations they will do something.

Or the dreaded alternative they allow Wegmans to buy 11 licenses, basically screwing the little guy who can not even afford one. Hopefully that will not happen.

It is too bad that The chairman retired, because the fight just became harder for the individual before at least wine drinkers had a voice. Whereas now we have none.

I still think there is a reason rendell picked Conti as a CEO, other that the politics of it all, but I could be wrong

[Capaneus]

  Jeff L said:

Matthew makes a strong point and one that I agree with. Typically all we consumers can do is complain and rant here and in other forums about how ridiculous this system is to no avail.

The idea of an organized, well heeled corporate front going up against the PALCB is encouraging but I think ultimately one destined to fail.  There is no question that food chains in the state stand to make significant profit on the sale of alcoholic beverages. The question I have is if any realistic alliance of chains can happen and if it does,  how much money will they commit to this uphill fight in Harrisburg?

←

Less than distributors will. They're a single-issue lobby, and this issue is nowhere near central to food retailers.

Given that the LCB is both a money-and-patronage-generating machine and popular (well, approved of, anyway) in much of the Commonwealth, there's no chance the system will be overhauled anytime soon.

[Mummer]

My take is that the fat cats, in this case the grocery stores, are playing within the rules and expanding their margins.

The huge prepared foods areas in supermarkets are not only driven by we consumers who don't cook as much, they're there because they make more money. (Imagine that.)

So, as restaurant operators, the superstore adds the silly cash register required by the silly law administered by the silly bureaucracy and make more money.

Nothing silly about that, and the shareholders (or owners waiting for the right opportunity to sell - are any of them left?) are happy.

Yeah, the liquor license might have been at a restaurant, but most of them can't afford it - isn't that what's being said on that other thread?

[philadining]

Wegmans, as a chain, is increasingly getting into setting Wine. They already do in New Jersey and Virginia, and have proposed a large liquor store adjacent to their flagship supermarket in Pittsford, NY. They recently purchased Century Liquor in Rochester, a large, established wine and liquor retailer in Rochester, with a pretty deep wine expertise.

Whether any of this will impact the way things are done here in Pennsylvania remains to be seen, I kind of doubt it, but pressure from large businesses like Wegmans and Acme is likely to have more influence than a few foodies grousing about how we don't like it...

In the short term, it should mean that one will be able to have beer and wine and maybe even mixed drinks in Wegmans' cafes, and more practically, one might be able to buy a 6-pack of beer to go there, from the Cafe, the beer won't be stocked in the main supermarket aisles like it is in most of the civilized world, but hey... baby steps.

[MarketStEl]

  matthewj said:

I still think there is a reason rendell picked Conti as a CEO, other that the politics of it all, but I could be wrong

←

I'm dying to hear your thinking on this. What else would the Gov have in mind here?

[JasonZ]

Well, if as citizens we have no voice in our state, we should vote the only way we can ... buy our alcohol in NJ and DE. Perhaps when the Commonwealth sees the loss of profit, it may reconsider its actions.

As to that being illegal ... if the state police have nothing better to do than chase down people buying fine wine, it will make a wonderful story for the newspapers, CNN, etc. The state may have a monopoly but they can't ride roughshod over interstate commerce, especially when their monopoly stocks less and less of the quality wines some of us will want ...

First, the Tea Revolution; then the Whiskey Revolution ... today, the Wine Revolution!!!

[Jeff L]

  JasonZ said:

As to that being illegal ... if the state police have nothing better to do than chase down people buying fine wine, it will make a wonderful story for the newspapers, CNN, etc.

←

This is true and Jonathan Newman all but said it twice in his interview the other night on WHYY. He was careful in saying that he didn't condone the "illegal" importation of wine into PA from border states and went further by saying if PA wants to stop liquor bleed into other states than we must do a better job of making the stores more consumer friendly and having the depth of product with "hot pricing" as he calls it.

Wait, isn't that what was starting to happen under his tutelage?

[wkl]

does anyone know the actual law about bring liqour across teh pa border? what if the wine is a gift? is there a bottle limit kind of like the limit at us customs at airports?

[Capaneus]

  wkl said:

does anyone know the actual law about bring liqour across the pa border? what if the wine is a gift? is there a bottle limit kind of like the limit at us customs at airports?

←

Interestingly, just now there isn't a law, as far as i can tell: the statute on the books was invalidated by last year's Supreme Court decision, and the State has yet to mend matters. Normally, decisions of this sort carry an automatic injunction, keeping the current statute in force for a given length of time to give the Government time to pass new law. This one pointedly didn't.

So individuals should be on safe ground on personal import. In fact, the only bar to mail-ordering is that most sellers are so unsure of what the heck is going on they still won't mail to Pennsylvania - just in case.

Or at least that's my take on the matter. Someone more fully versed in the law might know better.

[Jeff L]

Actually, Newman indicated that is still is in fact against the law to bring in even a gift of a bottle of wine to PA from out of state. Now as to how aggressive PA's finest would enforce such law is of course another question.

[wkl]

i wonder what would happen if you stopped just before the pa border ,approached a state trooper, and insisted on paying the tax due on your ill gotten goods. would they have a procedure for this? or just slap the cuffs on you and haul you away? or what if you offered the trooper a bottle of ridge monte bello cab? you know, to kinda grease the skids, so to speak

Edited January 13, 2007 by wkl (log)

[Capaneus]

  Jeff L said:

Actually, Newman indicated that is still is in fact against the law to bring in even a gift of a bottle of wine to PA from out of state. Now as to how aggressive PA's finest would enforce such law is of course another question.

←

Well, he's certainly a lawyer in the best position possible to know about this. Just wonder what the statutory basis is.

[Neuronix]

The law obviously makes no sense. Why should Blue Mountain Winery's awful, overpriced wine be sold by their stores in RTM and elsewhere, while others can't open wine stores? I can only hope the corporations make the big monetary push in lawyer's fees to get this all changed.

[serpentine]

I'm not holding my breath. The trend in permits is getting more restrictive, not less.

(See last year's new provision requring new licenses to sell beer to go. Yes, I know the law was intended to target nuisance stores, but I don't think anyone "forgot" that it would apply to non-nuisance corner bars as well.)