I am pretty sure this provision of the law was pointed out as potentially troublesome in one of the articles appearing in The Starnger a month or so before the measure was voted on.
Chickens: home to roost. I'm with Mr. Szilagyi, this is stupid and makes all of us look stupider. It also makes Costco look stupid, as they had a huge hand in crafting the initial language in the initiative, yes?
@3 You *do* know that a drug, far safer than alcohol, with endless industrial uses, is a class I narcotic all over the world, right? So when you get your panties in a bunch over "archaic" laws regarding alcohol, you come across as myopic and naive.
The fact is, the people who hire the people to make the laws don't give a fuck about practicality or common sense. They want money & power. That's what this issue is about. It has nothing to do w/ alcohol itself. It could just as easily be an issue of toothpaste.
The WSLCB just never learns, does it? The end result of this is that Costco buys a new law, either through the legislature or by initiative, that undoes all restrictions on business-to-business sales.
In order to make the initiative "revenue neutral," Costco wrote in a provision that saddled distributors with a whopping license fee and the burden of making up any shortfall in $150 of expected state revenue by the end of the year.
Then Costco conveniently added a provision allowing themselves to entirely circumvent the above distribution system. Thus the whopping increases in liquor prices everywhere except Costco.
Now Costco sues for the right to act as distributors/wholesalers in every way but in name.
And the state's interpretation is "arbitrary and capricious", @7!!?
@8: word. Free market means that retailers are free to charge whatever they want. Buyers are free to not buy, but we all know that people will not go out of their way to save a couple of bucks on a single purchase. The retailers know that too. look for higher bar prices, higher bottle prices and less choice.
Jeeze, Costco is dumb. There's no reason for them to waste money on a lawsuit.
All they have to do is spin off a subsidiary (let's call it Boozeco) that distributes liquor but has no retail business. Then the "real" Costco is only a retailer. Problem solved.
Boozeco distributes to Fred Meyer, Bartell, mom-and-pop, ... and Costco. Costco pays Boozeco just like everyone else, but of course it's actually doing little more than an internal transaction.
PS. I'm still in favor of the Massachusetts model, where no person or company can own more than three retail outlets. And all retailers must reside (person) or be incorporated in and have a majority of directors living (company) in-state.
@14, I know that Trader Joe's gets to sell in three Mass. stores because it is partially incorporated in Needham (on top of its Monrovia, California incorporation). But I'm pretty sure Whole Foods has also found a way to sell in three stores around the state. Any idea how?
I'd like to see stores be able to issue rain-checks on advertized spirits they happen to run out of during the course of the ad. Apparently under WSLCB, stores are not allowed to issue rain checks. Period. If it is the store's policy to issue rainchecks for all their other products, it should be the same for liqour too.
I'd like to see stores be able to issue rain-checks on advertized spirits they happen to run out of during the course of the ad. Apparently under WSLCB, stores are not allowed to issue rain checks. Period. If it is the store's policy to issue rainchecks for all their other products, it should be the same for liquor too.
WSLCB sounds like its stomping and crying and yelling because someone took its toy away. Small-minded little bureaucrats wanting to exercise whatever power they have left. Fire the motherfuckers, do away with the board, and let's get on with the business of living. Jeez.
I suppose Whole Foods could have done something like what I suggested for Boozeco -- spun off a subsidiary that incorporated in Massachusetts. Maybe that's pretty much what TJ's did.
Or perhaps they could have "rented" space in those three locations to a Massachusetts person (who just happens to be closely associated with a higher-up in their MA operation).
As I understand it, Massachusetts does a pretty good job of cross-referencing corporate directors, so that the same person couldn't be on the board of directors of 20 different shell companies that would operate 60 stores.
@22: Trader Joe's has long run east-coast operations out of its Needham semi-HQ, so I don't think those offices opened for the specific purpose of selling liquor.
Regardless, I really like the Massachusetts policy, which puts TJ's and Shaws on equal footing with the specialty stores.
Keep it from kids, and that's that. States with less restrictive laws are not littered with drunks on every corner.
Chickens: home to roost. I'm with Mr. Szilagyi, this is stupid and makes all of us look stupider. It also makes Costco look stupid, as they had a huge hand in crafting the initial language in the initiative, yes?
The fact is, the people who hire the people to make the laws don't give a fuck about practicality or common sense. They want money & power. That's what this issue is about. It has nothing to do w/ alcohol itself. It could just as easily be an issue of toothpaste.
You *do* know that just because @3 thinks the booze blue laws are archaic doesn't mean that he doesn't think the same of weed blue laws.
In order to make the initiative "revenue neutral," Costco wrote in a provision that saddled distributors with a whopping license fee and the burden of making up any shortfall in $150 of expected state revenue by the end of the year.
Then Costco conveniently added a provision allowing themselves to entirely circumvent the above distribution system. Thus the whopping increases in liquor prices everywhere except Costco.
Now Costco sues for the right to act as distributors/wholesalers in every way but in name.
And the state's interpretation is "arbitrary and capricious", @7!!?
Jesus, people here are dumb.
All they have to do is spin off a subsidiary (let's call it Boozeco) that distributes liquor but has no retail business. Then the "real" Costco is only a retailer. Problem solved.
Boozeco distributes to Fred Meyer, Bartell, mom-and-pop, ... and Costco. Costco pays Boozeco just like everyone else, but of course it's actually doing little more than an internal transaction.
Viva small business!
Which Costco doesn't. At any point in its supply chain.
Because Costco wrote it that way.
So Boozeco wouldn't get to enjoy the whoppingly unfair competitive advantage that Costco does. Which would be just terrible!
I suppose Whole Foods could have done something like what I suggested for Boozeco -- spun off a subsidiary that incorporated in Massachusetts. Maybe that's pretty much what TJ's did.
Or perhaps they could have "rented" space in those three locations to a Massachusetts person (who just happens to be closely associated with a higher-up in their MA operation).
As I understand it, Massachusetts does a pretty good job of cross-referencing corporate directors, so that the same person couldn't be on the board of directors of 20 different shell companies that would operate 60 stores.
Regardless, I really like the Massachusetts policy, which puts TJ's and Shaws on equal footing with the specialty stores.
That's not called "fucking random". That's called fucking lying.
And learn to punctuate, dumbshit.