The Seattle Times: "Voters kick state out of liquor business"

[Crow]

"Next June, consumers in Washington state will be able to buy hard liquor at grocery and warehouse stores, including Costco."

By Melissa Allison, Seattle Times

The second try, plus more than $22 million, was the charm for Costco Wholesale in attempting to kick the state out of the liquor business and allow private retailers to sell liquor in Washington.

Initiative 1183 was passing with more than 60 percent of the early returns, including King, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane counties. "We are very pleased and grateful to all of the coalition members across the state," said Joel Benoliel, Costco's chief legal officer.

The opposition to the measure said in a statement, "We remain concerned about the initiative's consequences on public safety and we hope the supporters of I-1183 will do everything in their power to ensure that the revenue promises made to local law enforcement during the campaign are fulfilled as Washington ends its current liquor-control system."

Next June, liquor sales in Washington will shift from the state to grocery and warehouse stores, including Costco.

In the coming weeks and months, the state Liquor Control Board will wind down its liquor business, including selling its inventory and Seattle distribution center, and auctioning off state-run liquor stores.

About half of the 328 stores that sell liquor in Washington are state-run, and they will stop selling liquor by June 1.

The other half are owned by contractors, who can continue operating but must buy the existing inventory from the state. That averages $125,000, and some say they cannot afford it.

Meanwhile, the liquor board will begin issuing licenses to qualified liquor distributors and retailers, and on June 1 privately owned stores will begin selling liquor in Washington.

Complete article at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...liquor09m.html

[Crow]

Bruce Ramsey from the Times wrote a great opinion piece on I-1183's passage.

An excerpt:

Usually when retailers would influence the law, they do it through trade associations, away from the news pages. Yet Costco plunked down $20.9 million, and has fought the battle over I-1183 under its own flag.

Why?

Why does Costco still price a hot dog and soda at $1.50? Because Jim Sinegal wants to. Sinegal co-founded the company. He has been CEO for 28 years. He turns 76 on Jan. 1, and has announced his retirement for that day. He is wrapping up a career.

Coming in to his last year as CEO, one piece of unfinished work was his battle with the state of Washington over alcohol. It was a war in which he had fought and lost.

He wanted to win.

Did he put some of Costco's Washington business at risk? Maybe, but the ads charging it with "lining its pockets" were overstated.

People like Costco.

Some say it is bad for one company to spend $20.9 million to change state law. I don't think so. The voters needed to know Costco's view, particularly when the other side, funded by the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America Inc., was trying to spook them with duplicitous ads about the evils of drink.

Costco spent about $15 per voter. It was a good fight, and its ads were clean.

Initiative 1183: Thar she blows, Captain Sinegal

[Snusdog]

And then there is this

In an interview on the steps of the State tax regulation agency, Director Jon Bomer said “The bad news is that the loss of liquor revenues means that property, automotive, and food taxes will increase by 15% beginning June 1. Also, public Schools and Law enforcement will be asked to cut personnel by 20% beginning in the next fiscal year.

On the other hand, Bomar said, “The good news is that you can all head down to Costco and by a bottle to drown your sorrows for about 15 cents less than before”.

[desirexe]

And then there is this

Yay! I can save on booze!! I'll need it when I yank my kid out of his already shitey school and begin homeschooling him! Kidding...but that is a bit of discouraging news.

[Crow]

The state will continue to receive revenue from licencing, and there will be added revenue from liquor retailers and the distributors.

Those fees and other aspects of I-1183 would increase the state's liquor revenue by an average of $36 million to $42 million a year during the first six years, according to the Office of Financial Management.

Local governments also would receive more money: an additional $31 million to $38 million a year on average over six years, the budgeting office said.

That includes one-time costs of $28.7 million to cover unemployment and other worker-buyout expenses, end leases, sell inventory and otherwise liquidate the state's business.

The state would reap additional money from the sale of its Seattle distribution center, which is valued at $28.4 million.

We were one of 21 states that currently have a state monopoly on wholesale and liquor retail. The control laws were put in place during the Prohibition era, and it was time for reform.

EDIT: "Out of the 21 states that regulate alcohol wholesaling, only nine (Alabama, Idaho, New Hampshire, Oregon, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and Utah) run liquor establishments." - Wikipedia

EDIT: "Total State General Fund revenues increase an estimated $216 million to $253 million and total local revenues increase an estimated $186 million to $227 million."

Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/2011/1183.pdf

Tax revenue aside; the initiative will increase the penalties for those that furnish alcohol to minors.

If there are some individuals in the state that are that concerned about any potential 'lost revenue', then maybe this will encourage them to discuss the formation of a "Washington State Cannabis Board"

[Snusdog]

Yay! I can save on booze!! I'll need it when I yank my kid out of his already shitey school and begin homeschooling him! Kidding...but that is a bit of discouraging news.

D,

That was me just being a smart ass..........the quoted post is completely fictitious.

I would welcome the same here in SC

So you can tie one on with no regrets..........well.............at least without any socio-economic regrets

[snusgetter]

All this is going about it the wrong way.

It should be "Voters kick the state out of the legislating business"...

Takes care of every issue in one fell swoop!!!

[desirexe]

D,

That was me just being a smart ass..........the quoted post is completely fictitious.

I would welcome the same here in SC

So you can tie one on with no regrets..........well.............at least without any socio-economic regrets

As far fetched as it seemed, you got me!! I too was being a little sarcastic, I'd never homeschool my son, maybe put him in a private school...but anyway, I can't really say this 1183 thing meant a lot to me though, most of my liquor purchases are made on the nearby military base where the "gas stations" have been selling cheap liquor for as long as I can recall. Not trying to sound harsh to any true WA residents that may be impacted negatively by this, just stating my "two used portions." Who said that phrase here??? Sirloot??? I love it!!

[Crow]

I can't really say this 1183 thing meant a lot to me though

I rarely drink, so this initiative wasn't personal for me. I still thought it was necessary to see it approved, and I'm glad the majority of my fellow Washingtonians shared the same sentiment.