Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, November 9, 2011
Election Money Wins Big in WA, While Reason Triumphs Elsewhere
Posted by Goldy on Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM
It was a big win for MONEY in yesterday's election here in Washington state, where the side that spent the most campaign cash won almost every single race. And the bigger the financial advantage, generally the bigger the victory.
Hooray for the greenback! The free market at work. (Democracy, not so much.)
Elsewhere in our nation results inspired a bit more hope, with voters sending clear messages in response to right-wing overreaching in Ohio, Arizona, and even Mississippi. Ohio voters rejected Gov. Kasich's public employee union-busting law by a decisive two-to-one margin, Arizona voters recalled state Senate president Russell Pearce, the author of the state's controversial anti-immigrant law, and in Mississippi, voters surprised the experts by rejecting a ballot measure that would have defined personhood as starting at conception, thus outlawing all abortion for any reason, as well as some forms of birth control.
So I guess there are still limits, even in American democracy.
6
Keep beating that dead horse Goldy. It is all you seem capable of doing. The fact you consider yourself to be a real journalist is amusing at least.
7
Sorry, dipshits, Goldy is right. Most people are slobbering TV-watching zombies, and what flashes before their Orphan Annie eyes is The Truth. Costco spends $21 million to clog the channels with their spew, Game Over.
It's not just Citizens United as the problem. The problem is lardass morons strapped to their Master.
It's not just Citizens United as the problem. The problem is lardass morons strapped to their Master.
9
I also find it impossible to believe that 1183 passed because people don't like the state run liquor store monopoly, and we're one of few states with that kind of bullshit. IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE.
By the way, did Big Money also happen to ruin the vote on Tim Eyman's bullshit 1125? You didn't mention it here. I'll assume democracy lost that round, too.
By the way, did Big Money also happen to ruin the vote on Tim Eyman's bullshit 1125? You didn't mention it here. I'll assume democracy lost that round, too.
10
Such a lack of integrity and honesty, it's really quite sad. Your moralistic screeching failed to sway a right minded public. I laugh in your face.
11
@7 is the dipshit. The government shouldn't be in the business of selling booze. Whether or not Costco spent money is immaterial.
12
Goldy and @7: Please try to quell your sanctimonious condescension. Neither of you are God’s gift to progressive Democrats.
13
How much did No on 1183 spend? I'll bet it's more than was spend on either side on any other initiative, or even campaign. I'll bet it was more than ALL the other initiatives put together. The money was on both sides.
@11, if you think grocery stores are going to do a better job than state stores, you're wrong. No one has been a louder advocate of dismantling WSLCB than I, but this was the wrong bill. Availability of quality liquor is going to go way, way down. If you only drink industrial swill, you won't notice, but the burgeoning craft-spirits business in this state sure will: their products will instantly become almost unavailable.
Guess I'd better stock up.
@11, if you think grocery stores are going to do a better job than state stores, you're wrong. No one has been a louder advocate of dismantling WSLCB than I, but this was the wrong bill. Availability of quality liquor is going to go way, way down. If you only drink industrial swill, you won't notice, but the burgeoning craft-spirits business in this state sure will: their products will instantly become almost unavailable.
Guess I'd better stock up.
14
When the average voter is educated by what they see on advertisements on TV, then the side who can fund the most ads (as well as hire the most serious sounding retired officials) wins.
If all a voter hears is how good a proposition is going to be for Washington, they'll believe it because they'll assume, incorrectly, that if it wasn't good for washington they'd be hearing that from Very Serious People on TV too. When they don't, they assume that the ads are true - regardless of if they are or not.
The underlying problem is that there are no credible Very Serious People on TV anymore who aren't bought-and-paid-for. Facts don't drive voters, trust in what they see on TV does. And who ever can afford to dominate the airwaves can buy that trust.
Just showing up to a voting booth isn't democracy, you have to have an educated electorate and equal access to the facts. We do not have that. i'm not sure what we have, but it certainly isn't a functioning democracy.
If all a voter hears is how good a proposition is going to be for Washington, they'll believe it because they'll assume, incorrectly, that if it wasn't good for washington they'd be hearing that from Very Serious People on TV too. When they don't, they assume that the ads are true - regardless of if they are or not.
The underlying problem is that there are no credible Very Serious People on TV anymore who aren't bought-and-paid-for. Facts don't drive voters, trust in what they see on TV does. And who ever can afford to dominate the airwaves can buy that trust.
Just showing up to a voting booth isn't democracy, you have to have an educated electorate and equal access to the facts. We do not have that. i'm not sure what we have, but it certainly isn't a functioning democracy.
15
When the average voter is educated by what they see on advertisements on TV, then the side who can fund the most ads (as well as hire the most serious sounding retired officials) wins.
If all a voter hears is how good a proposition is going to be for Washington, they'll believe it because they'll assume, incorrectly, that if it wasn't good for washington they'd be hearing that from Very Serious People on TV too. When they don't, they assume that the ads are true - regardless of if they are or not.
The underlying problem is that there are no credible Very Serious People on TV anymore who aren't bought-and-paid-for. Facts don't drive voters, trust in what they see on TV does. And who ever can afford to dominate the airwaves can buy that trust.
Just showing up to a voting booth isn't democracy, you have to have an educated electorate and equal access to the facts. We do not have that. i'm not sure what we have, but it certainly isn't a functioning democracy.
If all a voter hears is how good a proposition is going to be for Washington, they'll believe it because they'll assume, incorrectly, that if it wasn't good for washington they'd be hearing that from Very Serious People on TV too. When they don't, they assume that the ads are true - regardless of if they are or not.
The underlying problem is that there are no credible Very Serious People on TV anymore who aren't bought-and-paid-for. Facts don't drive voters, trust in what they see on TV does. And who ever can afford to dominate the airwaves can buy that trust.
Just showing up to a voting booth isn't democracy, you have to have an educated electorate and equal access to the facts. We do not have that. i'm not sure what we have, but it certainly isn't a functioning democracy.
17
Goldy, you forgot a big win for gays in Iowa's 18th. Liz Mathis beat out her $40,000 NOM funded challenger. Iowa's Senate is still safely in the hands of pro-equality Democrats by one seat.
20
@13 Is spot on. Finding quality booze, unless you're in a fancy suburb, maybe, will be a pain. I'll miss finding quality whiskey all over the state, and 1.5 liter Safeway Select and Kirkland vodka are no substitutes to drown my sorrows.
Ever seen the booze selection at California and Hawaii grocery stores? It's not pretty.
Ever seen the booze selection at California and Hawaii grocery stores? It's not pretty.
21
So, few of you could give a shit about the increasingly corrupting influence of money in politics, as long as you get to buy booze more conveniently? Huh. Just trying to understand your priorities.
Guess you're all thrilled with our city council incumbents too.
Guess you're all thrilled with our city council incumbents too.
22
If the Costco advertising was so effective then why did only <25% of registered voters even bother to vote at all? BTW if the state stores are so wonderful shouldn't they be able to stay open and compete with Costco et al?
23
@fnarf 13
I'm very curious to see if your prediction proves correct. I'm not convinced, since fancy, high quality beer is available in most big grocers in this city. If we applied you argument to beer, all we could buy would be bud and michelob.
But in the end I am very curious to see how this plays out.
I'm very curious to see if your prediction proves correct. I'm not convinced, since fancy, high quality beer is available in most big grocers in this city. If we applied you argument to beer, all we could buy would be bud and michelob.
But in the end I am very curious to see how this plays out.
25
@21 - Goldy, cut it out. You're in a staff meeting. Please exercise at least a semblance of courtesy to your colleagues.
26
@23, only someone who has never been in a first-rate beer store, like Bottleworks in Wallingford (a type of store that will still be illegal for spirits), could describe the selection in any supermarket in the city as "fancy, high quality".
28
@13: What quality liquor you get in a WSLCB store that I can't find in a private establishment in IL, or anyone else in any other state that doesn't have a government distribution monopoly? A good product won't solely rely on a centralized distribution model; who's to say there won't be a proliferation of "quality liquor" stores? Are craft beers any harder to find because they're available at Safeway?
29
Goldy, if it didn't have a ton of money behind it and it passed then would it still be anathema to you? Is money backing a ballot measure a reason to oppose it even if you agree with the issue? Or is because you disagree with the issue that money is the corrupting influence?
31
even counting liberal 'successes' this country can only move in one direction at the moment... to the right. the best progressives can hope for is to (occassionally) be able to stop (or more likely delay) bad things from happening. there is no way to make leftward change happen at the ballot box in this country. and i see no likely path from where we are right now to a place where you can make leftward change happen via voting. that is a dead democracy.
32
In most other states I've lived there are large (easily 10,000 square feet, which isn't nearly as large as you think) liquor stores with huge selections of hard liquor, beer and wine.
Is there a reason that couldn't be done here?
Is there a reason that couldn't be done here?
33
@21: Once again you show no respect for anyone who disagrees with you. This wasn't about cheap booze; it's simply getting the state out of a business it has no reason to be in.
Would it be better if a grassroots campaign made this happen, of if the legislature did its fucking job? Sure. But this was the initiative in front of us. If you want to cast a symbolic vote against corporate influence in government (you're just noticing?) fine. But the rest of us can think for ourselves -- and we did.
Would it be better if a grassroots campaign made this happen, of if the legislature did its fucking job? Sure. But this was the initiative in front of us. If you want to cast a symbolic vote against corporate influence in government (you're just noticing?) fine. But the rest of us can think for ourselves -- and we did.
34
@23:
And the only reason the ale selection is as good as it is in your local supermarket is because most are locally produced, and so there's a comparatively lower distribution cost that makes it possible for the chain to stock them at a price-point low enough to ensure a reasonable sell-through of the product. The relative handful of other "high quality" beers and ales are stocked only because they're wholly owned subsidiaries of the big conglomerates, which leverage their dominant market-density to eke out that little section at the end of the long beer aisle to front those particular products.
That being said, Fnarf @26 is absolutely correct. But, you have to seek out an establishment that has a REALLY diverse craft-brew selection to see what he means.
And the only reason the ale selection is as good as it is in your local supermarket is because most are locally produced, and so there's a comparatively lower distribution cost that makes it possible for the chain to stock them at a price-point low enough to ensure a reasonable sell-through of the product. The relative handful of other "high quality" beers and ales are stocked only because they're wholly owned subsidiaries of the big conglomerates, which leverage their dominant market-density to eke out that little section at the end of the long beer aisle to front those particular products.
That being said, Fnarf @26 is absolutely correct. But, you have to seek out an establishment that has a REALLY diverse craft-brew selection to see what he means.
35
Goldy, also, you might want to correct your post because unions in Obio outspent the opposition 2 to 1. Does that mean Money won in Ohio and reason did not triumph?
I am on the unions' side, I'm just pointing out your ranting isn't grounded in facts or reality.
I am on the unions' side, I'm just pointing out your ranting isn't grounded in facts or reality.
36
News flash: Costco put in more than $20mil to the pro 1183 campaign but the campaign only spent $13Mil. Which is only slightly more spent than the opposition -which was funded by beer and wine distribution monopolists.
There is no high-road on this issue about money corruption. The amount spent makes it a pretty even race if money is your handicapper.
There is no high-road on this issue about money corruption. The amount spent makes it a pretty even race if money is your handicapper.
37
Fnarf is sadly 100% correct. Selection and quality of liquor is going to be reduced significantly. WA state liquor stores are very roughly 1/4 the size of a Safeway of QFC, and they stock nothing but wine and liquor. Grocery stores are already full of merchandise competing for shelf space. You're going to see the section that currently stocks mixers expand a little bit with a pretty modest selection of items.
Test case that exists today: Vermouth. You can get it at the WA State Liquor store, or at most grocery stores. It is about a buck *cheaper* at the State liquor store. There is about 2-3x more types available at the State liquor store. You can't get a 375ml bottle at a Grocery store, which is a pity, as vermouth goes stale. Nothing's stopping QFC from stocking Carpano Antica or Punt e Mes or Dubonnet right now. Right now you're lucky to find Dolin or Lillet. How many kinds of Ardbeg are going to be stocked at Safeway? Laphroaig?
The future: fewer brands at higher prices. Also, no web page to find where you can get a specific item. If you give a shit about what you drink, this is serious bad news.
Test case that exists today: Vermouth. You can get it at the WA State Liquor store, or at most grocery stores. It is about a buck *cheaper* at the State liquor store. There is about 2-3x more types available at the State liquor store. You can't get a 375ml bottle at a Grocery store, which is a pity, as vermouth goes stale. Nothing's stopping QFC from stocking Carpano Antica or Punt e Mes or Dubonnet right now. Right now you're lucky to find Dolin or Lillet. How many kinds of Ardbeg are going to be stocked at Safeway? Laphroaig?
The future: fewer brands at higher prices. Also, no web page to find where you can get a specific item. If you give a shit about what you drink, this is serious bad news.
38
@ 32. I'm sure Beverages & More is calling about available retail spaces in Washington as I write this. Within a few years they'll have more than 900 employees statewide selling us a bigger variety of booze at more convenient hours. And they won't close when we get a light dusting of snow either.
39
@34, exactly. This isn't about "fancy" stuff. It's about stuff that isn't owned by huge conglomerates. What's going to go missing from stores isn't high-priced liquor; it's OBSCURE liquor, including LOCAL liquor. Local liquor is a fundamental building block of culture.
By going the big-box route, we have chosen the culture of Idaho over the culture of Los Angeles and New York. One of the things most disenheartening about this bill is that it was supported by all the people who otherwise crow about "density" and "transit" and "buy local" and "urbanism"; yet they all voted for a bill which is the pure embodiment of getting in your SUV and driving fifteen miles to the Costco or Walmart out on the highway in order to buy your plastic half-gallons of Smirnoff.
By going the big-box route, we have chosen the culture of Idaho over the culture of Los Angeles and New York. One of the things most disenheartening about this bill is that it was supported by all the people who otherwise crow about "density" and "transit" and "buy local" and "urbanism"; yet they all voted for a bill which is the pure embodiment of getting in your SUV and driving fifteen miles to the Costco or Walmart out on the highway in order to buy your plastic half-gallons of Smirnoff.
40
@13 If you like the current system, you are welcome to continue to imbibe only the few varieties of things that are available. For example, I like cognac, but there are only a few varieties available here. In the future, you can continue to drink the ones currently available. In short, if you think the current system is better than a system that allows for competition and caters to its customers, you are wrong.
41
I dunno, I got one mailer from Costco, and four from the opposition (three of which carried the same stupid "don't let them buy your vote message" you're using here). Granted, I don't have cable, so I don't know how many ads there were for either side.
But that's beside the point. I voted yes, though I'd say I was hardly touched by money spent on either side. It's a little shitty that only large outlets can sell liquor, but it certainly won't be worse than the situation we have now. We'll have giant privately-owned liquor stores opening up, selling at the very least the same liquor we can get in our liquor stores currently. Maybe from here, the legislature can work on fixing the law so that smaller boutique liquor stores can open up and we can have an outlet for great craft liquor. One step at a time.
But that's beside the point. I voted yes, though I'd say I was hardly touched by money spent on either side. It's a little shitty that only large outlets can sell liquor, but it certainly won't be worse than the situation we have now. We'll have giant privately-owned liquor stores opening up, selling at the very least the same liquor we can get in our liquor stores currently. Maybe from here, the legislature can work on fixing the law so that smaller boutique liquor stores can open up and we can have an outlet for great craft liquor. One step at a time.
42
Just remember why the 10,000 square foot rule (which will in effect kill most independent specialty liquor stores) was put into the legislation in the first place: Because Goldy and others touted the BS line from the Beer/Wine lobby that allowing liquor in convenience stores and gas stations would mean more underage drinking and OHMYGODTHINKOFTHECHILDREN!!!
43
@32 The reason the progressive liberal types didn't like 1183 was because about 900 unionized workers would lose their jobs. These are grocery clerk jobs where they earn at least twice as much as the average grocery clerk. I'm not anti-union, but this is the sort of thing that anti-union people talk up when they talk about unions.
Yes, we will have large stores with a lot of selection. People like @13 think that somehow getting rid of a monopoly will reduce selection. Look at the shelves in a modern grocery where a single vendor stocks a section, like household implements. For example, all the brooms, mops and sponges are usually from a single brand, whether they are the best product or not. The grocery store gets compensated by the vendor for having a single vendor. The vendor stocks and maintains the section, not the store. The consumer loses because of a lack of selection. This flies under the anti-monopoly radar because the vendor doesn't stock every store. There won't be a single vendor stocking the liquor stores.
Yes, we will have large stores with a lot of selection. People like @13 think that somehow getting rid of a monopoly will reduce selection. Look at the shelves in a modern grocery where a single vendor stocks a section, like household implements. For example, all the brooms, mops and sponges are usually from a single brand, whether they are the best product or not. The grocery store gets compensated by the vendor for having a single vendor. The vendor stocks and maintains the section, not the store. The consumer loses because of a lack of selection. This flies under the anti-monopoly radar because the vendor doesn't stock every store. There won't be a single vendor stocking the liquor stores.
44
This vote is a bad example for the 'death of democracy' since the money spent on both sides was pretty massive.
Now the previous election that was bought outright by the soda boyz, that's a MUCH better example.
Now the previous election that was bought outright by the soda boyz, that's a MUCH better example.
45
@39: there was already plenty of obscure liquor unavailable, except by special order or at only 1 store, where it was always due next Tuesday. How much Borsci San Marzano have you seen? Amer Picon?
46
@33: Oh. So you think I should show more respect to people who tell me I suck, and yet read me anyway, apparently for the purpose of coming into my comment threads and telling me I suck? Is that what you're suggesting? That I shouldn't respond in kind?
And while we're at it:
Really? Support your thesis—you know, without resorting to lazy ideological platitudes. Explain to me, using facts, not opinion, why I should accept the assumption that the state should not be in the liquor business.
And while we're at it:
... it's simply getting the state out of a business it has no reason to be in.
Really? Support your thesis—you know, without resorting to lazy ideological platitudes. Explain to me, using facts, not opinion, why I should accept the assumption that the state should not be in the liquor business.
47
@46, even though I agreed with you on this particular bill, your argument here is juvenile and flatulent.
"Facts, not opinion" is just stupid.
The state should not be in the liquor business because liquor is a legal product that demands no special attention beyond an age restriction, which is easily enforced in private stores.
The state doesn't monopolize the sale of shoes; why liquor? The state doesn't monopolize the sale of office supplies; why liquor? The state doesn't monopolize the sale of haircuts, or tomatoes, or televisions, or bass guitars, or packing peanuts, or ottomans, or books, or drill bits, or petunias; why liquor?
Many products with the potential for abuse are sold in private stores: you don't buy gasoline from the Washington State Gasoline Control Board. You can buy GUNS AND KNIVES -- swords, even -- in this state from private shops. My god, electric saws and ladders and swimming pools and jugs of hydrochloric acid are incredibly dangerous! And yet you can buy them in private stores.
Liquor is the ONLY product that is required to be sold in state stores. And every single one of the arguments in favor of state liquor stores also pertains equally to beer and wine -- and yet beer and wine are sold in every convenience store without much trouble at all.
In fact, there is no argument in favor of state liquor stores that isn't also an argument for total prohibition of liquor.
There is no conceivable justification whatever for a 10,000 square foot minimum, however. See all the above arguments again.
"Facts, not opinion" is just stupid.
The state should not be in the liquor business because liquor is a legal product that demands no special attention beyond an age restriction, which is easily enforced in private stores.
The state doesn't monopolize the sale of shoes; why liquor? The state doesn't monopolize the sale of office supplies; why liquor? The state doesn't monopolize the sale of haircuts, or tomatoes, or televisions, or bass guitars, or packing peanuts, or ottomans, or books, or drill bits, or petunias; why liquor?
Many products with the potential for abuse are sold in private stores: you don't buy gasoline from the Washington State Gasoline Control Board. You can buy GUNS AND KNIVES -- swords, even -- in this state from private shops. My god, electric saws and ladders and swimming pools and jugs of hydrochloric acid are incredibly dangerous! And yet you can buy them in private stores.
Liquor is the ONLY product that is required to be sold in state stores. And every single one of the arguments in favor of state liquor stores also pertains equally to beer and wine -- and yet beer and wine are sold in every convenience store without much trouble at all.
In fact, there is no argument in favor of state liquor stores that isn't also an argument for total prohibition of liquor.
There is no conceivable justification whatever for a 10,000 square foot minimum, however. See all the above arguments again.
48
@46 No, Goldy, you explain what reason the government has in being in this commercial enterprise. Is this the business of the polis, the People? Yours is the unreasoned position, which is why the no on 1183 crowd switched to fear-mongering.
49
@ 46, we read you because you're such an offensive gasbag that you're hard to ignore. Kind of a left wing Limbaugh. You probably know lots of liberals who tune in to his show, if you're not one yourself.
Also, you're here on SLOG. I've been reading SLOG for years, and read The Stranger for years before that. It's one of my favorite publications. Trust me, if you were still on HA, I'd only have to know about you when Dan reposts your stuff here, like he did before he hired you. And in those days, I had the choice to click through, which I seldom did.
You're kind of hard to ignore, like a child throwing a tantrum in a restaurant. If you think there's some kind of validation there, that's only in your mind.
Fnarf @ 47 has given a thorough explanation of the reason why people don't believe government should be in the business of retail liquor, and in particular what Washington's model, which allows beer and wine to be sold at every corner store, is a joke anyway. Let's see how you answer it.
Also, you're here on SLOG. I've been reading SLOG for years, and read The Stranger for years before that. It's one of my favorite publications. Trust me, if you were still on HA, I'd only have to know about you when Dan reposts your stuff here, like he did before he hired you. And in those days, I had the choice to click through, which I seldom did.
You're kind of hard to ignore, like a child throwing a tantrum in a restaurant. If you think there's some kind of validation there, that's only in your mind.
Fnarf @ 47 has given a thorough explanation of the reason why people don't believe government should be in the business of retail liquor, and in particular what Washington's model, which allows beer and wine to be sold at every corner store, is a joke anyway. Let's see how you answer it.
50
@39,
While I greatly enjoy Clear Creek Distillery's products, I'm at a loss as to what other local products are carried in the majority of Washington liquor stores. Even the famed 4th Ave S location is sorely lacking anything local or otherwise interesting.
And Clear Creek is exactly the sort of thing that would be carried in upscale groceries like Met Market and Thriftway.
While I greatly enjoy Clear Creek Distillery's products, I'm at a loss as to what other local products are carried in the majority of Washington liquor stores. Even the famed 4th Ave S location is sorely lacking anything local or otherwise interesting.
And Clear Creek is exactly the sort of thing that would be carried in upscale groceries like Met Market and Thriftway.
51
As far as I'm concerned, this is the first real chink I've seen in the WSLCB's armor. Now that we have the state out of the liquor distribution and retail business, we can craft the follow-up legislation to allow boutique liquor sales and allow adults to purchase liquor via mail-order, as is allowed in most other states. Don't like the 10,000-foot store requirement? Then talk to your legislator about introducing a bill to remove that requirement. The legislature has punted this issue for years, out of fear of the MADD lobby (OMIGAWDWHATABOUTTHECHILLLLLLDRUN?!). Now the issue is a bit less of a third-rail, because they're no longer having to craft legislation to basically overturn the remnants of Prohibition; the legislation would just be to inject a little sanity into existing law.
52
GOLDY: in your argument, don't forget too that the demise of the state liquor store also eliminates a stepping stone retail system for legalized marijuana...
[ and, to be repetitious, I warned you Goldy: narcissistic psuedo libertarians...]
My favorite comment supporting privatization was the guy complaining that the state liquor store had closed early because the snow was shutting down the regional transit system!
[ and, to be repetitious, I warned you Goldy: narcissistic psuedo libertarians...]
My favorite comment supporting privatization was the guy complaining that the state liquor store had closed early because the snow was shutting down the regional transit system!
53
@48 The campaign strategy and campaign materials of both the yes and no were not created or directed by their voter supporters, but rather by the wealthy business interests who were duking it out over this law. You can't pin the "No on 1183" adds on Goldy, whether or not you think he would have taken the same approach if he had been in control of the cash.
54
@50, at my closest WSLCB store in Wallingford, which is crappy, I can get every product made by Fremont Mischief and Dry Fly. Probably others, too, though since I'm rarely looking at gin and never at vodka I wouldn't normally see them. WSLCB actually does a fairly decent job with local distilleries.
If you think you're going to see Clear Creek in Safeway you're out of your mind.
If you think you're going to see Clear Creek in Safeway you're out of your mind.
55
Hmm. It's been about an hour and a half since @ 47 was posted. How shall we interpret Goldy's silence?
56
@46/goldy
Like how you did with your "ALCOHOL IS THE DEVIL" nonsense in the run up to this? Man up and admit you like restrictive alcohol policies.
Really? Support your thesis—you know, without resorting to lazy ideological platitudes. Explain to me, using facts, not opinion, why I should accept the assumption that the state should not be in the liquor business.
Like how you did with your "ALCOHOL IS THE DEVIL" nonsense in the run up to this? Man up and admit you like restrictive alcohol policies.
57
Fnarf-
10,000 feet is smaller then you think. I have worked in retail for a long time and will tell you this: if a neighborhood demands a selection of local liquor, a store will sell more local liquor then you could ever imagine in a state run store. People in retail want to make money and sell what people want. Especially now! Take a breath...
10,000 feet is smaller then you think. I have worked in retail for a long time and will tell you this: if a neighborhood demands a selection of local liquor, a store will sell more local liquor then you could ever imagine in a state run store. People in retail want to make money and sell what people want. Especially now! Take a breath...
58
@46: I'd say @47 slapped you down far better than I could.
Coming from you the "facts-not-opinion" trope is quite laughable.
Coming from you the "facts-not-opinion" trope is quite laughable.
60
Fnarf, I'm not a fan of the 10,000 SF minimum, but I voted for 1183 because we can add the small stores later.
But really, it's not going to be only Costco and Safeway. Take a look at http://www.bevmo.com. They have several offerings from Clear Creek. Many of their stores are larger than 10,000 SF. They have over 100 stores in California and Arizona. Is there a reason they, or a local company with a similar business model, wouldn't be able to open stores in Washington under the new law?
But really, it's not going to be only Costco and Safeway. Take a look at http://www.bevmo.com. They have several offerings from Clear Creek. Many of their stores are larger than 10,000 SF. They have over 100 stores in California and Arizona. Is there a reason they, or a local company with a similar business model, wouldn't be able to open stores in Washington under the new law?
61
@60, a handful of BevMo stores are better than just about any WSLCB store, but the majority of BevMos are actually worse than the worst WSLCB store. In populated areas, at least; I'm not talking about tiny contract stores in dinky nowhere towns (though those towns aren't going to be getting giant BevMos either).
62
Relax Fnarf. If there is anyone with any sense in Seattle, they'll open up a liquor warehouse like one I frequent when I'm in Anchorage called Gold Rush Liquor. They're 20,000 sq ft, and they carry any sort of specialty liquor you could think of... If they don't have it, they'll special order it for you. Sound familiar?
http://www.goldrushliquor.com/
http://www.goldrushliquor.com/
63
@62, yes, but WHERE? If I have to drive all the way across town to get to it, where's the benefit of urban living there? The deal with small specialty stores is that they're everywhere, right in the neighborhood.
And, uh, don't take this the wrong way, but I looked up Gold Rush Liquor and it is smack dab in the middle of exurban chain store strip mall hell, in a sea of parking lots next to a Wal-Mart, a Sports Authority, A Best Buy, a Sam's Club, a McDonald's, a Great Clips, a Pier 1, a Round Table Pizza....I live in a city, or thought I did. If I have to drive to Puyallup to get a bottle of One Barrel, I'm going to be unhappy.
And, uh, don't take this the wrong way, but I looked up Gold Rush Liquor and it is smack dab in the middle of exurban chain store strip mall hell, in a sea of parking lots next to a Wal-Mart, a Sports Authority, A Best Buy, a Sam's Club, a McDonald's, a Great Clips, a Pier 1, a Round Table Pizza....I live in a city, or thought I did. If I have to drive to Puyallup to get a bottle of One Barrel, I'm going to be unhappy.
64
@47: Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not interested in your arguments for why privatization might or might not be better than our current state store monopoly. I'm asking for somebody to explain to me why the state government, inherently, should not be in the booze business? Why such enterprise should necessarily be off limits to government? That's the assumption I'd like to see somebody defend.
Because if you accept, unchallenged, that the sale of liquor is an inappropriate enterprise for government, then it's a short hop to arguing that government should not be in the electric utility business either, or in the business of delivering water... or even of educating children.
Over the past couple years I've seen people rolling their eyes again and again at the very notion that state government should be in liquor business, as if it's some offense against nature. I'd like somebody to attempt to explain why.
Because if you accept, unchallenged, that the sale of liquor is an inappropriate enterprise for government, then it's a short hop to arguing that government should not be in the electric utility business either, or in the business of delivering water... or even of educating children.
Over the past couple years I've seen people rolling their eyes again and again at the very notion that state government should be in liquor business, as if it's some offense against nature. I'd like somebody to attempt to explain why.
65
@48: No, government currently is in the booze business, and has been since the end of prohibition. It's up to those arguing to upend the status quo to explain why state stores are an improper role of government.
66
@63 If you're looking for an area without strip malls in Anchorage, you'll be looking for a while... It's just the way they do things up there.
69
You're argument is ridiculous--pitting the means against the ends. It's like saying that Albert Pujols is a better ball player than Ichiro because Pujols has a cool Red Bat, and Ichiro has a .360 batting average.
70
Also, the way I'm reading WSLCB's take on the effects of the bill (they have a new webpage explaining the transition), it sounds very much to me as if a liquor distributor/retailer that gets licensed in the state of Washington can sell via mail-order. Thus, I can finally order specialty liquors legally and have them shipped to me, via a BevMo or Liquor Barn or whomever gets a similar contract.
71
@64:
So wait -- are we arguing for and against captialism now? Should we be defending the proposition the government shouldn't sell/provide all our goods and services? Utilities and education are for the public good and electricity and water involve a great amount of shared infrastructure. Selling alcohol involves... brick & mortar, trucks & gas, wheat and hops? How do these things even compare? It makes more sense to argue that the government should provide telecommunications services than it does to provide liquor.
Because if you accept, unchallenged, that the sale of liquor is an inappropriate enterprise for government, then it's a short hop to arguing that government should not be in the electric utility business either, or in the business of delivering water... or even of educating children.
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
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (71) RSS