 |
|
|
What’s red, white and bitter?
|
 |
LISA BUL/The Patriot Ledger |
| Michael Lorigan of Derby Street Wine & Spirits in Hingham says he will go out of business if Whole Foods Market gets a license to sell wine. |
“I would close”
In Hingham, Michael Lorigan donated $500 to the “No On 1” effort.
He sees problems if wine sales are expanded, from a threat to his own business to diminished enforcement of liquor laws across the state.
Richard Graham said the increased competition from wider licensing will be good for consumers.
“The arguments against (Question 1) are ridiculous,” said Graham, who owned a vineyard in Napa Valley, Calif., in the 1990s. “Kids don’t buy wine.”
The issues are anything but ridiculous to Lorigan. He wonders how the state and communities will police more places with the same number of officers - and unlike Graham, who would lose few if any sales to supermarkets, Lorigan said the passage of Question 1 would be a death knell for his fledgling enterprise as nearby supermarkets begin to sell wine.
“I would have to close, no question,” he said.
Graham acknowledges that he is in a different niche than Lorigan. He runs a mostly direct-order business, with more high-end vintages than Lorigan and a minimal number of in-store sales.
Still, Graham added, “If you know what you’re doing, why be afraid (of the change)?”
For Lorigan, the issue is livelihood rather than fear. If wine licenses proliferate, “it will take away the portion of the business that makes the day for shops like mine.”
Lane Lambert may be reached at llambert@ledger.com
^ top
EDITORIAL
Vote No on Question 1
The Patriot Ledger / Oct. 24, 2006
The ballot initiative to introduce wine sales in supermarkets at local option has provoked more debate in this election cycle than any other issue except the governor’s race.
Both sides have a lot at stake - a lot of green. The issue has been cast in many forms but at heart it’s simple. It’s about supermarkets - and other food outlets - making a lot more money if allowed to sell wine, and package stores losing sales to new competitors.
The supermarket owners portray Question 1 as a simple matter of convenience; consumers can buy a bottle of cabernet at the same time they are buying dinner. No one gets drunk on wine bought in supermarkets, they claim. Their customers consume wine with their food.
On the other side, opponents of the move to create more liquor outlets predict more teen drinking, more drunken-driving accidents and more work for police.
In truth, it is not possible to forecast exactly what would happen if the question is approved, except that as many as 1,000 new liquor licenses would follow. In our view, it is not difficult now to find a bottle of wine in Massachusetts. The state now has 2,800 liquor licenses. If some consumers are slightly inconvenienced because they have to make a second stop at the package store after the supermarket, that’s a small price to pay for not making wine easily available - with unknown consequences.
Package store owners have a financial stake in this ballot question. But police chiefs and other law enforcement officials do not.
The latter are afraid, along with package store owners, that hundreds of convenience stores and gas station food marts might use this as an opportunity to sell wine - and then beer.
While it’s true the question refers only to wine, those who’ve studied the question see it as a logical precursor to lobbying the Legislature to include beer along with wine. Current liquor permits come in two forms: full license for all alcoholic beverages or wine and beer only. This would create a new class of license, but what store owner would not want to add beer if wine sales add to the bottom line?
The question voters should consider is whether they think this state needs more liquor outlets, or whether current laws offer consumers enough places to buy a bottle of wine.
We think there are plenty now.
The Ledger recommends a No vote on Question 1.
^ top
Cash flows for wine vote
Spending by both sides on ballot Question 1 hits $7.2M, approaches record set in 1988
MetroWest Daily News / Nov. 2, 2006
Campaigns for and against a ballot initiative to expand wine sales at food stores in Massachusetts are preparing to empty their coffers leading up to Election Day on Tuesday.
A “yes” vote on Question 1 would allow supermarket chains to sell wine at all of their stores if local boards approve a new “wine at food stores license” for each location. A “no” vote would keep the current law, which allows each supermarket chain to sell wine, beer and liquor at a maximum of three of its stores in the state.
The ballot question committees for and against the initiative spent a combined $7.2 million through Oct. 15 - the latest data available - in their efforts to convince voters.
If the groups keep at it, they have a chance to break the record of $9.2 million spent on a 1988 ballot question to ban nuclear power plants in the state, according to Denis Kennedy, spokesman for the Massachusetts Office for Campaign and Political Finance.
The pro-nuclear side, or “vote no” campaign, spent $7.5 million of the total and prevailed at the ballot box, Kennedy said.
In this campaign, the wine sales group had spent $4.8 million and still had about $300,000 in its coffers as of mid-October, according to the campaign finance office. The group opposed to expanding the wine license had spent $2.4 million and had a remaining balance of nearly $700,000 on Oct. 15. Their next campaign finance reports will be released on Nov. 6, the day before the election.
Both campaigns indicated they would launch new efforts to reach voters in the days ahead but declined to offer details.
“We’re trying to talk to the public in every avenue available,” said Justine Griffin, spokeswoman for the Vote No on One Committee. “Advertising is the most effective way to reach the most people, but we’re also trying to reach people through the media and community groups.”
Package store owners, who are largely funding the Vote No effort, have asked for fliers to post at their locations, Griffin said. They have also asked their local liquor regulatory boards to take a position on the issue, and so far 24 of them have joined the “no” campaign.
The “no” campaign has run six television ads on all the local stations, two radio spots and two print ads, according to the VoteNoOnQuestion1.com Web site. The ads have featured police chiefs, who say the new licenses would create an increase in underage drinkers and drunken drivers, and Ron Bersani, the grandfather of drunken-driving victim Melanie Powell. Bersani, a Marshfield resident, led the charge for a new drunken driving law, known as “Melanie’s Law.”
The “yes” campaign has aired seven TV spots on all the local networks and two radio ads, according to the WineAtGroceryStores.com Web site. The ads feature the campaign spokesman, former state official Kim Hinden and others who say package stores are trying to protect their “virtual monopoly” using “scare tactics” as part of the “no” campaign.
The most recent TV ad points out that all but one of the local newspapers have endorsed Question 1.
“It speaks volumes about the newspapers seeing through the opposition’s contention that this is about public safety, when we can all see clearly that it’s about the bottom line,” Hinden said. “We’re going to continue on with our strategy of educating consumers about Question 1 and trying to combat the negative scare campaign of the ‘vote no’ side.”
Each supermarket chain has come up with its own efforts to promote the issue, she said. Some have aired internal radio ads while consumers are shopping, while others have printed “Vote Yes on Question 1” on their receipts as well as pamphlets that consumers can pick up on their way out.
“You have two industries slugging it out for something that affects their bottom line,” said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a government monitoring group. “That’s when you particularly have high spending campaigns.”
^ top
Split board stays out of wine debate
Selectmen vote 3-2 against taking stand on Question 1
The Patriot Ledger / Nov. 1, 2006
Randolph selectmen decided not to get involved in the debate on allowing food stores to sell wine.
The issue is Question 1 on Tuesday’s ballot.
Selectman James Burgess said the board should join other municipal officials in opposing the referendum.
“I don’t think it’s in the town’s best interest to give out more liquor licenses,” Burgess said. “You don’t have any problem buying beer or wine in the commonwealth.”
Because the selectmen serve as the town’s licensing board, Burgess said it was appropriate for the board to take a stand on the issue.
Selectman Paul Connors agreed, adding that approval of the question creates a potential for 10 more liquor license holders in town.
“We don’t need any more outlets” for wine, Connors said.
He added that the current license holders “do an excellent job in controlling alcohol sales in the community.”
Selectman Paul Fernandes opposed taking a stand on the issue.
“I don’t know if this is really an issue we should be voting on as a board,” he said.
Selectman William Alexopoulos said the town has liquor licenses available.
“I don’t know if it will create any more or less,” Alexopoulos said, referring to passage of the ballot question.
The board voted 3-2 against going on record as opposed to the question. Selectmen Chairman Richard Wells joined Alexopoulos and Fernandes in voting against taking a stand, with Burgess and Connors voting to support a no vote.
Fred Hanson may be reached at fhanson@ledger.com.
^ top
Cahill sour on wine question
QUINCY - State Treasurer Tim Cahill yesterday slammed a ballot initiative that would expand wine sales in food stores, saying the measure would be difficult to enforce and could lead to a spike in underage drinking.
“I’m extremely concerned, from an enforcement point of view, about opening up the floodgates to convenience stores,” the Quincy Democrat told The Patriot Ledger’s editorial board yesterday. “It does worry me.”
Cahill’s remarks coincided with a statement issued yesterday by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission - a state agency that Cahill oversees - saying two top agency officials also oppose the ballot question.
The ballot initiative, known as Question 1, would allow supermarkets and other food stores to sell wine in Massachusetts. Under current state law, no retail company may sell alcohol from more than three locations.
The state’s major supermarket companies, including Quincy-based Stop & Shop and West Bridgewater-based Shaw’s supermarkets, are funding the campaign for Question 1. Meanwhile, many of the package stores and alcohol distributors have united to fight it.
There are about 2,900 retail liquor licenses in the state, but critics say that number could nearly double eventually if voters approve Question 1 on Nov. 7.
Cahill, who regularly receives campaign contributions from alcohol salesmen, said many convenience shop owners probably wouldn’t want to carry wine because of the added hassle, but would do so to stay competitive once chain stores started to sell it.
He also said he is concerned that underage college students would buy wine in college cities such as Boston and Worcester. “You’re going to open up a Pandora’s box, and once you do it, it will be hard to put the lid back on,” Cahill said.
Eddie Jenkins, chairman of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, said that Question 1 would make meaningful enforcement of the state’s liquor laws nearly impossible. The agency’s chief investigator, Ted Mahony, also said the proposal could make it easier for minors to get their hands on alcohol.
But Kim Hinden, a spokeswoman for the Question 1 campaign, said there’s no evidence that an expansion of wine sales would lead to an increase in drunken driving. She noted that nearly all of the recent violations found by the ABCC involving alcohol sales at package stores to minors did not involve wine.
“It’s not a public safety issue,” Hinden said. “This is about the big liquor lobby not wanting competition in the marketplace and hiding behind issues like public safety.”
Hinden said the liquor license regulators’ stance could become a conflict of interest if Question 1 passes and disputes involving supermarket liquor licenses end up before the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. “They are supposed to remain independent and unbiased,” Hinden said.
^ top
Both sides far apart on impact of Question 1
To hear the advocates of ballot Question 1, passage of the proposal to allow food stores to sell wine will mean little change for the public. It will just be easier to pick up a bottle of cabernet or chardonnay and add it to the shopping cart along with the dinner groceries.
But opponents paint a dark picture - more drunken drivers, more fatal accidents, more teenagers sneaking illicit vintages out the door as the number of businesses allowed to sell wine doubles.
“It’s going to happen,” Norfolk County Sheriff Michael Bellotti warned during a Patriot Ledger editorial board meeting.
Not so, countered researcher Kevin Dietly and Question 1 supporters from Stop & Shop Supermarkets in a separate editorial board meeting.
“This is not an issue of public safety. It’s about local control and convenience,” said Dietly, of the Northbridge consulting group in Westboro.
In sessions that echoed the barrages of contesting TV ads now airing, the two groups argued their cases to The Ledger from entirely different grounds, disputing even the reasons for which the initiative is being pushed.
Question 1 would create a new “wine for food store” category for alcohol sales. There are now two categories, one for beer and wine, the other for beer, wine and hard liquor.
Local boards would have the option to approve one additional wine license for every 5,000 residents in their community.
Thirty-four other states already allow wine sales like those that Question 1 would add. Only New Jersey and South Dakota have restrictions like that in Massachusetts.
For the Yes On 1 forces, expanding wine sales in supermarkets and groceries is a matter of fairness. They use the term “monopoly” for the licensing system that has restricted wine sales to all but a handful of supermarkets since the 1930s.
Spokeswoman Kim Hinden, former deputy director of the state Office of Consumer Affairs, said Massachusetts supermarkets have sought a wine-sale compromise from the Legislature since the 1980s.
The Yes On 1 group disputes the No On 1 claim that the change will double the current 2,800 licenses, which include beer, wine and liquor sellers.
“That’s an excellent way to scare people,” Dietly said.
He and Stop & Shop spokesman Robert Keane said Question 1 would add no more than 1,000 new licenses statewide - in part because local boards could control the number of licensees issued, as they do now.
Hingham Deputy Police Chief Taylor Mills says the Yes On 1 campaign is “disingenuous” on two counts: Local boards would be under more pressure to approve a larger number of applications - especially if licenses were being approved in adjoining towns - while wine-only sales would turn out to be more of a first step to wider beer and liquor sales than Question 1 supporters suggest.
“This is the camel with his nose under the tent,” Mills said of wine-only sales.
He said Hingham’s grocery and package store licenses could jump from the current 12 to as many as 20 if Question 1 is approved. Richard Curtis, the owner of Curtis Liquors in Weymouth, said his town could wind up with 38 instead of 23.
“We have only three supermarkets,” Curtis said. “Where are the rest (of the licenses) going to go?”
Scores of the statewide total could potentially go to Stop & Shop, which has 119 stores in Massachusetts and only three beer and wine licenses, the single-company limit under existing law. But company spokesman Robert Keane said he wasn’t sure whether it would seek licenses for most of the 119.
The opposing sides also disputed the impact that wine sales in grocery stores would have on drunken driving, the enforcement of underage purchases and the economic pressure supermarkets would have on small stores.
Bellotti noted that Massachusetts has the third lowest drunken driving fatality rate in the nation. Dietly said federal data suggests that drunken driving rates and fatalities aren’t significantly different in states with more liberal wine sales - and that teenagers drink beer and hard liquor much more than wine.
While Curtis and Bellotti raised the specter of mom-and-pop stores being shuttered by supermarket competition, Dietly said studies show that small package stores make as much from Lottery tickets, snacks and tobacco as from wine, with most alcohol sales from beer and liquor.
On the other hand, supermarket wine sales are typically for meals - 80 percent at the Hingham Stop & Shop, according to store manager Mike Keaney.
Bellotti and Curtis said Question 1 could allow convenience stores and gas stations to get wine licenses, but Dietly and Hinden said the proposal is written for full-service groceries, not minimarts with “chicken wings ... and a head of lettuce,” as Dietly put it.
Such assurances aren’t swaying Bellotti, Curtis and Mills.
“The convenience (of purchase) is already there,” Bellotti said of the existing number of package stores. “Why mess with that formula?”
Lane Lambert may be reached at llambert@ledger.com.
^ top
Liquor stores look to stop ads backing Question 1
BOSTON - A group representing package stores announced that it has asked television stations to stop airing ads by the supermarket industry that urge people to support a ballot initiative enabling wine sales in grocery stores, alleging the ads “misinform” and “deceive” voters.
The Vote No on One Committee said one of its lawyers wrote to local stations asking them to reject ads paid for by the Massachusetts Food Association because they “intentionally misinform viewers about which retail outlet will qualify for the new alcohol licenses.”
The opposition also says the ads identify the supermarket group’s spokeswoman, Kim Hinden, as a former enforcement official.
“They think she’s a public official and she’s a paid spokesperson just like I am,” said Justine Griffin, spokesperson for the Vote No on One Committee.
The ad labels Hinden as a former deputy director of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs.
According to Hinden, the question’s opponents are once again trying to persuade the voters and the media with a “pack of lies.” “They are absolutely incorrect when they try to discredit my background. They are 100 percent wrong,” Hinden said.
The Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation confirmed Hinden was promoted to deputy director in 1998 and resigned from the agency in September 1999, when she was deputy director as well as director of communications. Hinden is also a former state registrar of motor vehicles.
The ballot initiative, dubbed Question One, asks voters to allow local licensing boards to issue alcohol licenses to food stores for the purpose of selling wine. Under current law, a supermarket chain can have no more than three locations that sell alcohol in the state.
^ top
|