Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, September 26, 2011

Support for Costco's Liquor Initiative Slips Below 50 Percent

Posted by on Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Since August, support for Costco-backed Initiative 1183 (closing state liquor stores and allowing giant grocery stores to sell hard alcohol) dropped four points, from 50 percent to 46 percent, according to the latest Elway Poll. That isn't statistically significant, given a five percent margin of error, but it looks increasingly unlikely that there will be a majority supporting I-1183 come November. Perhaps more telling than the overall spread is that people who said they would "definitely" vote against it nearly doubled, from 15 percent to 28 percent.

Behold, a beautiful graph:

elway_liquor_poll.jpg
  • Elway Research

It's not surprising. Even people who detest the poorly stocked, open-at-seemingly-random-hours, all-the-charm-of-a-Czech-bomb-shelter liquor stores—folks like me, who supported the more broadly worded I-1100 last year that would shut down those relics—dislike I-1183. The problem is, the more I find out, the less I like it. The con campaign, which is up to its larynx in bullshit, does make some good points. If you want selection... Costco, Safeway, and Kroger aren't exactly the first places you'd go running. Most of all, restricting liquor sales to stores over 10,000 square feet would mean little more convenience to the consumer. The campaign in favor insists selection would rise and and prices would fall—but after several requests to prove it, they've failed to produce any evidence.

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
"If you want section ..." -> "If you want selection..."
Posted by shaneleopard on September 26, 2011 at 5:26 PM
2
i honestly don't care because liquor is gross but i think i'm voting against it just to cancel dominic's vote after that horrible "war on cars" feature.
Posted by Swearengen on September 26, 2011 at 5:37 PM
Fnarf 3
A week ago I was in a little shop on Franklin Avenue in Hollywood, CA called "The Oaks Gourmet, Fine Foods and Spirits". Tiny little place, probably 3,000 sq. ft. or so, but with a well-earned reputation for outstanding carryout food (and a small outdoor seating area). They also carry a lot of little "gourmet" treats in the sense of jars of stuff, fancy vinegars, seasonings, and what not, a rather spectacular cheese case, and a small but well-chosen selection of wine and local (or at least California) beers. AND SPIRITS. Small-batch bourbon, single malt Scotch, artisanal ryes (a burgeoning area of interest that Seattle is being left out of), all with a special focus on small West Coast suppliers, particularly gins and vodkas (since these are not aged, new players can get in the game without having to sit on a bunch of barrels for a decade). It was utterly charming, and it was absolutely packed, right up to closing at midnight.

This store is impossible in Seattle. It would be against the law. It will still be against the law if 1183 passes.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 26, 2011 at 6:02 PM
Will in Seattle 4
There is a reason why Fnarf is so epically clueless and the 43rd overwhelmingly endorsed No on this very very bad initiative.

Women will decide this vote, and pretend to men that they're shocked at the result.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 26, 2011 at 6:45 PM
Fnarf 5
@4, there is also a reason why you can read a dozen posts by me on this topic and still not have a fucking clue what my position is. That reason is STUPIDITY.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 26, 2011 at 7:34 PM
Fnarf 6
Also, there is a reason why Will in Seattle expresses such confidence in the "women" demographic, even though no woman would willingly even stand near him, and why he so consistently confuses the "women" demographic with the bluenose "frightened women" demographic, and that is because he's never had a conversation with a woman who wasn't frightened, at the best that she was going to have the tits bored off her, at the worst that she was going to have her limbs hacked off as he tried to get her corpse into the trunk of his car. If you've met him, you know the Will in Seattle vibe.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on September 26, 2011 at 7:47 PM
internet_jen 7
can slog happy write an initiative?
Posted by internet_jen on September 26, 2011 at 8:34 PM
Reverse Polarity 8
Fuck. I so want to kill Washington's prohibition-era liquor laws, but like others, the more I learn about I-1183, the less I like it.

I like Costco well enough. It's great if I need a pallet of toilet paper or whatever. But I can only imagine that their selection of spirits will be significantly smaller than the current WA liquor stores. They'll carry one brand of vodka in gallon size bottles. And grocery stores won't carry a huge selection either. This 10,000 sq ft requirement will utterly eliminate any small mom & pop store or artisan boutique specializing in anything interesting.

If anything, I can see I-1183 resulting in even less selection than we have now.

This was a dick move, Costco. You got greedy and wrote an initiative tailor-made to swallow up most of the liquor business for yourself, while screwing over small businesses, and small brewers and distillers.

I will sadly vote no on this, and hope that next time someone actually gets their shit together and writes a decent initiative.
Posted by Reverse Polarity on September 26, 2011 at 9:21 PM
8Way 9
Ever been to a BevMo or Liquor Barn in California or Colorado? They are huge >> 10K ft^2 places with every booze you could ever want at great prices. The Colorado ones even have "bars" in them for tastings. You can count on them moving to the area if 1183 passes. Crassco will sell Seagramsish crapola, but Bevmo's selection will blow away the meager WSLCB stores.
Posted by 8Way on September 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM
8Way 10
Ooops, Liquor barn is no more in CA/CO. Bevmo is though.
Posted by 8Way on September 26, 2011 at 10:20 PM
11
The graphic states that 6% cite "keep out of mini marts" as a reason against, but is that really a reason to vote against this? I think not.
Posted by Eastpike on September 26, 2011 at 11:06 PM
12
I like the idea of getting liquor at Safeway, but dislike the prospects for selection. Compare our wine market to the wine market in states where grocery stores can't sell it. In NY state, my home, wine can only be sold in wine shops, which end up offering a large variety at all price points. In WA and OR, where I am now, Safeway sells a lot of poor wine, Trader Joes sells a few good bottles, and some speciality shops sell very expensive wines. But the middle market is absent or underpopulated. It is bad enough that wine is sold that way here. Don't do it to liquor, too, or else how will I make a good drink to make me feel better about being unable to find affordable Sancerre?
Posted by wxPDX on September 26, 2011 at 11:28 PM
13
I love when an article says that some perceived outcome or shift is within the margin of error and then immediately goes on to say how the result is important nonetheless.

Never let statistics get in the way of a good story, I guess.
Posted by madcap on September 26, 2011 at 11:35 PM
14
The status quo is good enough. There are more important issues to solve in the world. Here's some perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alc…

Defeat I-1183!
Posted by Smell on September 28, 2011 at 12:57 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy