Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 22, 2011
News YES on Initiative 1183 is the Responsible Choice
Posted by Pete Hanning on Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:05 AM
Pete Hanning, owner of the Red Door restaurant and president of the Seattle Nightlife and Music Association, supports Initiative 1183. The measure would close the state-run liquor stores and allow grocery stores over 10,000 square feet to sell hard alcohol.
Running a restaurant—creating a place where people can enjoy great food, relax, talk, socialize and generally wind down from life’s stress—is my passion. I’ve devoted myself for years to the hospitality industry, so I take seriously any issue that affects the quality of my guests’ experiences and my business’ bottom line.
Which is why I’m urging a YES vote on Initiative 1183 on the November ballot.
I feel Initiative 1183 is a responsible and reasonable plan to finally get state government out of the business of selling and promoting liquor and focus state resources where they belong—on enforcement of and education on our liquor laws.
My career in hospitality and my involvement with the Seattle Nightlife and Music Association, Seattle Restaurant Association, and Washington Restaurant Association (WRA) have shown me that while there are many things the state can and even should do, handing out free liquor samples isn’t exactly a paramount duty.
Restaurants are behind I 1183 because we’re in the hospitality business. Like a lot of restaurant owners, I want people to have a good experience when they’re in my place. Among other things, this means strong expertise and having choices.
We have the expertise. But one of the problems with the current system of state-controlled liquor and big (out of state) liquor retailers in charge of distribution is that restaurants have no choice but to buy liquor from an assigned store. There is no competition for our business. Sometimes they’re out of what my customers want, and that is frustrating and harmful to my guests and business.
Washington is one of the few states that actually forces restaurants to purchase liquor from government stores at government-set prices. As a business owner, I want distributors to compete for my business by offering me the product selection and customer service my guests and business demand.
If I-1183 passes, it also means increased funding and tougher penalties for local law enforcement. I’ve been advocating for increased enforcement and education in the form of real tools to prevent sales to minors, keeping alcohol-impaired people off our roads, and helping communities to be more safe and vibrant. And because restaurants will have a bigger selection and more consistent supply of spirits does NOT mean a hall pass for minors. Those of you under 21 who’ve been carded will continue to get carded. We’re not about to lose our liquor licenses or get busted just so minors can consume alcohol.
And on the retail side, I-1183 limits liquor sales to large and medium size grocery stores. For the average consumer, passage of I-1183 will mean better selection at their neighborhood restaurants and stores. Also, these types of stores are as good or better than state liquor stores at preventing sales to minors, and to say otherwise is bullshit.
There’s also an environmental efficiency to buying everything in one spot. If you’re having friends over for mojitos, and you have to go to the store for limes, mint and ice and then make another trip to the liquor store, it just means an extra trip and more time on the roadways.
People need to check their facts. Stranger readers can do just that by visiting YESon1183.com. Once you do, I think you’ll agree with me that a YES vote on 1183 is a no-brainer.
(Note to readers: Slog also ran a guest post by the campaign opposing I-1183, which you can read here. )
3
Um...
Might wanna fix that.
Pete Hanning, owner of the Red Door restaurant and president of the Seattle Nightlife and Music Association, opposes Initiative 1183.
Might wanna fix that.
5
So you think that those big box retailers will keep prices low? There's no mechanism for controlling prices like you have in other states. It's free control being handed over to the free market. It's a tea party wet dream. A boozy tea steeped in gin and greed.
Then again, if you like Kamchatka or Monarch I guess this is all pretty fine...
Then again, if you like Kamchatka or Monarch I guess this is all pretty fine...
7
If I don't have a Costco membership, can I still buy liquor at Costco?
This is the case in several states.
This is the case in several states.
8
The State needs to get out of the liquor business altogether, except for regulation and taxation. But limiting sales to giant box stores will limit availability as well as selection and is just leotarded. This is a stupid initiative that does nothing but help Costco profit. It does nothing to help the consumer.
9
@1 It's great for the Wealthy Business Interests that are funding the pro-1183 campaign, something the Wealthy Business Interests that are funding the anti-1183 campaign would do well to point out.
10
@8 for the last fucking time. 10,000 SQFT does not limit it to big box stores only. Quit spouting this lie.
11
@10, yes it does. If you have become desensitized to your exurban existence by the ubiquity of large stores, and have forgotten what neighborhoods look like, I'm sorry for you. I haven't. Just because a Trader Joe's is over 10,000 square feet doesn't mean good liquor stores; it means the opposite.
A 10,000 square foot store with 100 square feet of liquor is a crappy store. And that's the BEST that most people can hope for under 1183.
While I sympathize with Mr. Hanning's ludicrous plight, being forced to buy from a particular store, that doesn't make his problem bigger than everyone else in the state. The liquor selection that we are being denied in Washington is not the selection offered in typical restaurants.
But hey, half-gallons of Black Velvet for $9.99! Whoo hoo!
A 10,000 square foot store with 100 square feet of liquor is a crappy store. And that's the BEST that most people can hope for under 1183.
While I sympathize with Mr. Hanning's ludicrous plight, being forced to buy from a particular store, that doesn't make his problem bigger than everyone else in the state. The liquor selection that we are being denied in Washington is not the selection offered in typical restaurants.
But hey, half-gallons of Black Velvet for $9.99! Whoo hoo!
12
This post convinced me to vote no on 1183. Esp this paragraph.
"But one of the problems with the current system of state-controlled liquor and big (out of state) liquor retailers in charge of distribution is that restaurants have no choice but to buy liquor from an assigned store. There is no competition for our business. Sometimes they’re out of what my customers want, and that is frustrating and harmful to my guests and business."
I feel the "competition" will only result in higher prices. And the idea that being out of a certain type of liquor is "harmful" to patrons strikes me as ludicrous. It might be disappointing, but it's not going to harm me in any way if I can't order my favorite drink on a particular visit.
"But one of the problems with the current system of state-controlled liquor and big (out of state) liquor retailers in charge of distribution is that restaurants have no choice but to buy liquor from an assigned store. There is no competition for our business. Sometimes they’re out of what my customers want, and that is frustrating and harmful to my guests and business."
I feel the "competition" will only result in higher prices. And the idea that being out of a certain type of liquor is "harmful" to patrons strikes me as ludicrous. It might be disappointing, but it's not going to harm me in any way if I can't order my favorite drink on a particular visit.
13
@11 Way to make an assumption on my existence jack ass.
I know what 10,000 sqft is. How much space any store that would be able to sell liquor under this approach is up to them to decide. 100 sqft? Fine. Whole store? Works for me. Even if that 100 sqft is all that is available, that will still be thousands of times better than having to buy it from state run stores.
The system we have now is broke beyond belief. This is a great step towards fixing it. Is it the most perfect step ever? Hardly, but I would rather have this and work for more change than the crap you want to live in.
I know what 10,000 sqft is. How much space any store that would be able to sell liquor under this approach is up to them to decide. 100 sqft? Fine. Whole store? Works for me. Even if that 100 sqft is all that is available, that will still be thousands of times better than having to buy it from state run stores.
The system we have now is broke beyond belief. This is a great step towards fixing it. Is it the most perfect step ever? Hardly, but I would rather have this and work for more change than the crap you want to live in.
14
@11: I live in the middle of Capitol Hill and I can think of ONE liquor store and at least 6 10,000+sq.ft. stores within a mile of me. And I guarantee that at least ONE of these stores (recognizing the demographics of this area) will stock MORE liquor than does the liquor store and because of competition will offer liquor at LOWER prices. So, I don't think your argument holds any muster whatsoever.
15
Unless you want to get some top-shelf rum, or pick up a nice microbrew or local wine that the store ditched in order to make room for their selection of mass-market rot-gut liquor.
The state liquor store off Denny happens to be very convenient for me, but even if it wasn't, I don't really believe that the nearby Whole Foods or QFC are going to be able to match the selection. Costco might, but I don't shop at Costco.
Remove the 10,000 sq ft limit and instead give the licensing board a lot of leeway in issuing licenses (or give them a lot of leeway in issuing exceptions to the 10,000 sq ft rule), and you might win me over.
If you’re having friends over for mojitos, and you have to go to the store for limes, mint and ice and then make another trip to the liquor store, it just means an extra trip and more time on the roadways.
Unless you want to get some top-shelf rum, or pick up a nice microbrew or local wine that the store ditched in order to make room for their selection of mass-market rot-gut liquor.
The state liquor store off Denny happens to be very convenient for me, but even if it wasn't, I don't really believe that the nearby Whole Foods or QFC are going to be able to match the selection. Costco might, but I don't shop at Costco.
Remove the 10,000 sq ft limit and instead give the licensing board a lot of leeway in issuing licenses (or give them a lot of leeway in issuing exceptions to the 10,000 sq ft rule), and you might win me over.
16
10,000+ sq ft means there will be no liquor stores, just giant stores that happen to sell liquor along with a gazillion other things.
That means there will be no niche stores, nowhere that sells 40 types of bourbon, or offers a careful selection of brands. Just jugs of the cheap crap.
The state liquor stores are mediocre, but the alternative offered by I-1138 is worse.
That means there will be no niche stores, nowhere that sells 40 types of bourbon, or offers a careful selection of brands. Just jugs of the cheap crap.
The state liquor stores are mediocre, but the alternative offered by I-1138 is worse.
17
@16 Just one example: The average BevMo would fit the 10k requirement perfectly and manage to have a cornucopia of choices.
19
A yes vote - you're fucked! A no vote - you're still fucked!
I'm for privatizing liquor sales, but, this is still not the correct formula. Saying yes is just going to benefit one class of corporations instead of another.
I'm voting no until we get the right sort of bill.
Why are we locking small business out of the game? We always hear that small business creates more jobs and is more innovative. There are plenty of ways to deal with the minors and the security.
Hey - state legislators! Get off your ass and deal with this!
I'm for privatizing liquor sales, but, this is still not the correct formula. Saying yes is just going to benefit one class of corporations instead of another.
I'm voting no until we get the right sort of bill.
Why are we locking small business out of the game? We always hear that small business creates more jobs and is more innovative. There are plenty of ways to deal with the minors and the security.
Hey - state legislators! Get off your ass and deal with this!
20
@15 and 16 - You joking? Have you been to California? You can get every type of liquor you can get at our liquor stores in their big box stores (not all, necessarily, but many many stores). Besides, as #17 notes, BevMo (which might very well open locations here in WA if 1183 passes) has a MUCH better selection than we ever see up here in WA.
@19 - The legislature will never deal with this until we remove the State's monopoly. We should pass this initiative and then the legislature will almost CERTAINLY feel pressure to revise the system to expand choice after there isn't the entrenched interest in play. I can see that happening one of two ways: 1. the State waits until after the 2(?)-year statutory period before it can make alterations to an initiative passed by voters or 2. the State immediately alters the initiative on the grounds that the change (to alter the 10k limit) doesn't materially affect the aim of the initiative.
@19 - The legislature will never deal with this until we remove the State's monopoly. We should pass this initiative and then the legislature will almost CERTAINLY feel pressure to revise the system to expand choice after there isn't the entrenched interest in play. I can see that happening one of two ways: 1. the State waits until after the 2(?)-year statutory period before it can make alterations to an initiative passed by voters or 2. the State immediately alters the initiative on the grounds that the change (to alter the 10k limit) doesn't materially affect the aim of the initiative.
21
All of these specious arguments can be fixed by amendment. We need to start breaking down the state's monopoly first, and this is a good start.
22
You can wait --probably forever -- for the absolutely perfect bill to end the state's monopoly on liquor sales, or you can support this one and work on fine-tuning things later.
23
I see The Stranger has sold out to Costo and the other liquor wholesalers.
One need only visit lovely LA to see the effect of privatized liquor, where empty vodka bottles litter the streets and sirens roar non-stop. Drunken idiots run amok and teens have no trouble whatsoever obtaining booze.
Do we want to see Washington become a dirty, crime-infested police state like California? If so, follow the advice of the log-stupid whores who write for this ridiculous paper and vote yes on 1183.
But if you're intelligent enough to understand the reason why the state controls liquor in WA, vote no.
One need only visit lovely LA to see the effect of privatized liquor, where empty vodka bottles litter the streets and sirens roar non-stop. Drunken idiots run amok and teens have no trouble whatsoever obtaining booze.
Do we want to see Washington become a dirty, crime-infested police state like California? If so, follow the advice of the log-stupid whores who write for this ridiculous paper and vote yes on 1183.
But if you're intelligent enough to understand the reason why the state controls liquor in WA, vote no.
24
You really should visit LA sometime, @23. It's pretty obvious you never have. But then, you're just a stupid fucking troll, so who cares?
25
I lived there, 24, and San Diego. Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, right?
It's pretty obvious YOU don't know what you're talking about. So who cares?
It's pretty obvious YOU don't know what you're talking about. So who cares?
26
@25 no, but people with account names called 'thestrangeriscrap' who toss around language like 'log-stupid whores' are
so
so
27
@26 No. A troll is someone who attempts to interrupt people with unrelated, obnoxious speech just for the sheer joy of pissing people off. I happen to legitimately believe The Stranger IS crap. And I was inspired to create that name after I read a very inflammatory post by one of the writers here about the horrible situation endured by the recently freed hikers imprisoned in Iran.
Everything I have posted has been related to the thread or in direct response to another post and if Stranger writers can be disrespectful and inflammatory that's a fair response by any of their readers.
But it is interesting how some people believe a troll is anyone who doesn't go with the herd.
Everything I have posted has been related to the thread or in direct response to another post and if Stranger writers can be disrespectful and inflammatory that's a fair response by any of their readers.
But it is interesting how some people believe a troll is anyone who doesn't go with the herd.
28
I completely agree that the 10,000 sqft provision is stupid. I understand why it exists (parents are scared of their corner store selling vodka to mentally-ill homeless bums who will drunkenly murder their children), but I'd prefer if it didn't.
But everyone keeps saying that this provision will lead to very poor selection.
First of all, every existing state liquor store will be allowed to continue operating under this bill. So the selection can't really get any worse.
And second, let's say one single dedicated liquor store opens under the new provision. Or even just a dedicated alcohol store (including beer, too). As everyone's fond of saying, the 12th and Pine liquor store is about 6400 square feet of liquor and wine. So this new one would have an extra 3,600 square feet devoted to alcohol. That's a better selection almost by definition.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the average Costco store is over 100,000 square feet. The Broadway QFC is 64,000. The BYOB winery -- a facility that is devoted solely to wine -- is 20,000. Esquin Wine Merchants -- again, *they only sell wine* -- is 23,000.
If this law passes, I am 100% positive that someone will open a 10,000-sqft liquor store. Maybe it will sell beer and wine, too. Maybe it won't be in a great location (it's true that 10,000 sqft retail spaces are comparatively rare in the core of our dense neighborhoods). But it'll exist. And it'll have a good selection, because you can only have so many bottles of Smirnoff.
Sure, it would be nice to have smaller stores. But I don't think the selection is why. (Honestly, it's not like 7-11 is going to have the world's best selection of liquor, either.)
But everyone keeps saying that this provision will lead to very poor selection.
First of all, every existing state liquor store will be allowed to continue operating under this bill. So the selection can't really get any worse.
And second, let's say one single dedicated liquor store opens under the new provision. Or even just a dedicated alcohol store (including beer, too). As everyone's fond of saying, the 12th and Pine liquor store is about 6400 square feet of liquor and wine. So this new one would have an extra 3,600 square feet devoted to alcohol. That's a better selection almost by definition.
I think it's also worth pointing out that the average Costco store is over 100,000 square feet. The Broadway QFC is 64,000. The BYOB winery -- a facility that is devoted solely to wine -- is 20,000. Esquin Wine Merchants -- again, *they only sell wine* -- is 23,000.
If this law passes, I am 100% positive that someone will open a 10,000-sqft liquor store. Maybe it will sell beer and wine, too. Maybe it won't be in a great location (it's true that 10,000 sqft retail spaces are comparatively rare in the core of our dense neighborhoods). But it'll exist. And it'll have a good selection, because you can only have so many bottles of Smirnoff.
Sure, it would be nice to have smaller stores. But I don't think the selection is why. (Honestly, it's not like 7-11 is going to have the world's best selection of liquor, either.)
29
#12 don't make a jack monkey out of yourself... everyone knows competition drives prices down not up. lets go elementary so you understand, remember the game monopoly? once your opponent owned everything he got rich by driving hotel prices up, and you went broke just trying to pass by? Get Real. vote yes
30
Corporate monopoly or government monopoly?...I think I'll stick with the govt. for now.
Besides, after much searching online, I finally found a viewpoint from the firefighters and police and hospital workers, who are on the 'No' side of this issue, and they stress that the variety of problems from alcohol will increase so much (by 48% they say) -mainly because of the "trade area" loophole of 1183 that will allow small stores to sell liquor, giving us 1400 liquor stores, compared to the over 300 liquor stores we have now- so that any new financial tax benefit gained for their public services will be outweighed by the expected increase of problems stemming from alcohol.
As for restaurants, maybe there should be special allowances for them that doesn't involve Costco getting all the financial gain? -like a different law altogether, that addresses the restaurant owners issues to their liking. Surely we can dream something up that doesn't hand over a state monopoly to a business like Costco, and satisfies restaurant owners?
Currently, on another even more important issue, Costco has me very upset due to their support of rainforest destruction businesses (of which there is a petition against on the Change.org site) so I don't trust anything that comes from them.
With the info available to me, I guess I'm with the 'No on 1183' side, so far.
Besides, after much searching online, I finally found a viewpoint from the firefighters and police and hospital workers, who are on the 'No' side of this issue, and they stress that the variety of problems from alcohol will increase so much (by 48% they say) -mainly because of the "trade area" loophole of 1183 that will allow small stores to sell liquor, giving us 1400 liquor stores, compared to the over 300 liquor stores we have now- so that any new financial tax benefit gained for their public services will be outweighed by the expected increase of problems stemming from alcohol.
As for restaurants, maybe there should be special allowances for them that doesn't involve Costco getting all the financial gain? -like a different law altogether, that addresses the restaurant owners issues to their liking. Surely we can dream something up that doesn't hand over a state monopoly to a business like Costco, and satisfies restaurant owners?
Currently, on another even more important issue, Costco has me very upset due to their support of rainforest destruction businesses (of which there is a petition against on the Change.org site) so I don't trust anything that comes from them.
With the info available to me, I guess I'm with the 'No on 1183' side, so far.
31
Corporate monopoly or government monopoly?...I think I'll stick with the govt. for now.
Besides, after much searching online, I finally found a viewpoint from the firefighters and police and hospital workers, who are on the 'No' side of this issue, and they stress that the variety of problems from alcohol will increase so much (by 48% they say) -mainly because of the "trade area" loophole of 1183 that will allow small stores to sell liquor, giving us 1400 liquor stores, compared to the over 300 liquor stores we have now- so that any new financial tax benefit gained for their public services will be outweighed by the expected increase of problems stemming from alcohol -which understandably completely freaks them out.
As for restaurants, maybe there should be special allowances for them that doesn't involve Costco getting all the financial gain? -like a different law altogether, that addresses the restaurant owners issues to their liking. Surely we can dream something up that doesn't hand over a state monopoly to a business like Costco, and satisfies restaurant owners?
Currently, on another even more important issue, Costco has me very upset due to their support of rainforest destruction businesses (of which there is a petition against on the Change.org site) so I don't trust anything that comes from them.
With the all the 1183 info that I can find, I'm with the 'No on 1183' side, so far.
Besides, after much searching online, I finally found a viewpoint from the firefighters and police and hospital workers, who are on the 'No' side of this issue, and they stress that the variety of problems from alcohol will increase so much (by 48% they say) -mainly because of the "trade area" loophole of 1183 that will allow small stores to sell liquor, giving us 1400 liquor stores, compared to the over 300 liquor stores we have now- so that any new financial tax benefit gained for their public services will be outweighed by the expected increase of problems stemming from alcohol -which understandably completely freaks them out.
As for restaurants, maybe there should be special allowances for them that doesn't involve Costco getting all the financial gain? -like a different law altogether, that addresses the restaurant owners issues to their liking. Surely we can dream something up that doesn't hand over a state monopoly to a business like Costco, and satisfies restaurant owners?
Currently, on another even more important issue, Costco has me very upset due to their support of rainforest destruction businesses (of which there is a petition against on the Change.org site) so I don't trust anything that comes from them.
With the all the 1183 info that I can find, I'm with the 'No on 1183' side, so far.
33
It seems that many people have no concept of what 10,000 square feet represents. Most Walgreen's or Rite Aids are between 10,000 and 12,000 square feet. If 1183 passes, I'm sure there will be a transition period. But, over time, I think you'll find that the drugstores and grocery stores will carry a moderate selection that satisfies the mainstream. Costco will actually not carry that many brands, but the prices will be great. If you look at how they handle liquor in California, you'll have a good sense of the model. And then you are going to have liquor specialty stores. Some will be only 11,000 square feet, and they will probably also sell some wine and specialty beers, and maybe have a humidor and some gadgets. Others will be quite large, like BevMo in California. It's like having an entire Safeway sized store full of wine and liquor. The prices are much better than WSLCB and the selection better. You know, if the state had pulled their heads out a few years ago, this would not be happening. But, the ridiculous hours and pricing has opened the door for a better option.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (33) RSS