Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished

WASHINGTON STATE GOES PRIVATE!

2011-11-09T10:31:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Washington State voters resoundingly voted YES (looking like over 60% in favor) to privatize the state's liquor wholesale and retail operations. All liquor sales in the state will be private by June 1, 2012. Costco spent about $20 million supporting Prop. 1183 (for privatization), a spend that has been smeared as "buying the election" by anti-1183 groups. This ignores the fact that the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers Association spent over $12 million trying to defeat it. So...don't accuse the winner of "buying the election" when what really happened is that you were trying to buy it...and got outbid.

So, congratulations to the people of Washington on your wise choice and your victory! And...what's it mean for us? This definitely puts an intangible momentum behind privatization in PA; another state did it, and the sky hasn't fallen in. But tactically? It doesn't mean much. We don't have a Costco willing to step up and fund a campaign for privatization...and even if we did, it's not as simple as that. Because we have to work with the Legislature, and they've been thwarting the public's will on this for years.

Think about it. The polls consistently show the voting public in favor of privatization by a 2:1 margin, yet the Legislature still argues over whether they should even be thinking about it. They twiddle and diddle and talk about the PLCB's "modernization" plans, and the revenue, and the union, and THE CHILDREN!!!!! All red herrings. The People want the State out of the booze business. Very simple. Get the hell to work on it.

Why don't they? Well, the same polls show that only 17% of voters consider this an important issue. I'll grant that, and compared to some others, it's certainly not as important. On the other hand, the heavy lifting has already been done: there are a number of plans out there, some over ten years old, to privatize. Pick one, and do it. It's not controversial if 65% of Pennsylvanians are in favor of it.

Why else? Maybe because of the revenue coming in from our police-enforced monopoly. Prices at the State Store System aren't THAT much out of line with surrounding states -- I've never said that prices were a major issue, although selection and service ARE -- but that's because the PLCB has been willing to take a hit on profits (the governor's PFM report on privatization shows profits steadily declining; more on that soon) to keep their costs high. That's right, I said willing to take a hit on profits to keep their costs high. Because they're a bureaucracy staffed by a union, not a private company, they don't mind not being profitable (according to that PFM report, over half the PLCB's stores are not profitable), as long as they keep their jobs.

Why are the profits declining? So they can stay somewhat competitive while continuing to collect Pennsylvania's outrageously high wine and liquor taxes. But send that private, and the stiff taxes will be exposed. This is the ugly underbelly of the PLCB's State Store System: we pay more than other states on wine and liquor excise taxes: a whole lot more (jump to the link, then scroll down and take a look at the last three tables).

So we need to tell our legislators that when they take this system private, they need to take that burden off our backs and spread it around in a more fair and equitable manner. Or...pick it up in a Marcellus Shale tax of some kind...which it looks like they're already thinking about. Push for that. Because otherwise some genius is going to look at upping the beer tax, and we don't want that!

A good day for Washington State. With luck, a good beginning for Pennsylvania. Keep the ball rolling!

Retail Booze Privatization: why HB11 doesn't cut it

2011-11-05T10:38:00.002-04:00

HB 11, a bill proposed by House Majority Leader Mike Turzai back in July, is still the standard bearer for privatization. Privatization currently has the support of Republican Governor Tom Corbett, who has majorities in both houses of the legislature (although the Senate Republicans are stalling, possibly trying to squeeze out a deal on a Marcellus Shale "tax"). To make things more likely, the PLCB has obligingly stumbled badly in the past two years with:

two contracts of questionable ethics and effectiveness – one for the wine kiosks, the other for 'courtesy' training
the embarrassing public failure of the wine kiosks (and a clumsy attempt to cover up a strongly negative internal review of the idea)
a disastrous install of a $66 million inventory system that led to a gross overbuy of inventory (which then had to be stored in trailers in summer heat) and a shutdown of licensee ~~deliveries~~ pickups (the PLCB doesn't deliver...what was I thinking?!) for a week
a still-simmering corruption debacle at the Philadelphia warehouse in which over 20 employees were suspended (and another cover-up)
a complete fiasco over beer registration raids on three Philadelphia bars that led to very uncomplimentary hearings on the subject
a frustrating inability to promptly close nuisance bars
and a baffling failure to turn significant 'profits' with a police-enforced monopoly on sales of wine and spirits

This is the time to strike on privatization, and as you know, I've been all for it. I've called for it, argued for it, howled for it.

But unless substantial changes are made in HB11, I cannot support it.

It is not a question of the perfect being the enemy of the good; this bill has fundamental flaws that are simply not in favor of the citizens of Pennsylvania. I believe that they will result in the replacement of an unresponsive public monopoly with a poor selection of goods…with an unresponsive private oligopoly with a poor selection of goods, and I cannot support that. We have one chance to get this right, because changing the laws again will be even tougher. Let's have a look.

First, and most important to me, HB 11 does nothing about the intolerable police-enforced monopoly. If it passes as is, Pennsylvanians are still forbidden by law to bring home a bottle of wine from New Jersey (or Maryland, or Delaware, or New York...). I've been assured directly by Representative Turzai that the police will no longer enforce this, but that's not good enough. You're a legislator; don't tell me the police won't enforce a despicably un-American law; change the law. When so much of the state's population lives in the tight pocket of the southeast, just across the bridges from huge liquor stores, to do anything else is simply ridiculous. Kill the monopoly, encourage competition. The only reason this is even faintly legal and constitutional is because of the overboard interpretation of rights granted to the states through the 21^st Amendment by federal courts; there is no such monopoly on any other goods. The police-enforced monopoly is insulting and intolerable. I cannot and will not support HB11 or any other privatization proposal that does not end it, and neither should you.

Second, the proposed wholesaler fees for exclusivity of brands pretty much guarantee a smaller selection of wine and spirits. Nathan Lutchansky (of the PLCB Users Group blog) has explained this in greater detail than I'd care to replicate; read it there. You'll soon realize that this is a non-starter. Why is this here? Well...maybe this is the reason (and Turzai's general counsel Jim Mann is extremely protective of the bill as written, BTW). Clean bill, please: do-over time.

Taxes are another issue: they're too high. Turzai has replaced the insulting “Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax” with a more rational gallonage tax, but it attempts to replicate the revenues from the onerous Johnstown tax – plus state sales tax, plus the PLCB's “profit” that goes to the state (not really "profit," but a somewhat arbitrary number set each year by the legislature; didja know that?) – by boosting it to crazy high levels...more than twice the taxes in neighboring states. Again, Lutchansky hasthe numbers on this; have a look (see his "Issue #2"). The taxes on wine and liquor simply do not have to be that high. They're unfair at those levels; why should I be paying so much more to fund state programs that benefit everyone just because I drink -- moderately!? Now's the time to make these taxes more equitable, instead of some of the highest in the nation (which is weird, because we have one of the lowest beer taxes...). Replace the revenue with a shale gas tax if you have to.

A huge problem: what about beer? Why hesitate when we can fix some of the most egregious problems with a couple quick penstrokes (see below) Get rid of the insane case law, now! While we're at it, do away with ALL limitations on sales by licensees: “distributors” can sell anything from a single bottle to a keg, and so can taverns (and delis, and supermarkets with deli licenses), and fix the tax laws so that all retail outlets are on the same footing (right now, bars pay more taxes than distributors...say what?). Then, allow beer distributors to add wine and liquor to their licensed sales; allow the new wine/liquor licensees to sell beer. The artificial separation of sales is all about protecting business status quo; rewrite these laws for the benefit of Pennsylvanians, citizens, and voters for a change! Hell, if Joe "CEO" Conti can say “I'm for the people of Pennsylvania,” so can I!

1,250 licenses is simply not enough. If the number were doubled, to 2,500, we would still be under the national average per capita, and this would help address the issue of oligopoly (see below). It will also help address the red herring issue of rural retail access.

I don’t know enough about how the PLCB sells to licensees to complain about it, so I’ll tell you what a friend of mine, a licensee, said:

“My concerns are from a licensee’s point of view. I don't want to be forced to buy from one wholesaler that has a limited selection, makes it difficult to place special orders, and charges retail and sales tax on ‘wholesale purchases.’”

To tell the truth: I don’t even know what HB11 does to address these concerns. I do know that almost every licensee I've talked to who tries to keep a premium wine or spirits inventory finds the PLCB frustrating, and that almost every one is afraid to criticize them. I’d like to hear more about what HB11 has for licensees...I suspect it's not much.

The licensing scheme in HB11 is just that: a scheme. It’s easiest to quote from a licensee who emailed me about this:

“The huge issue I see with the bill is the emphasis on large (over 15,000sf) stores. Was this bill paid for by big retailers like Total Wines? Who the hell is the state to mandate the square footage of a private business? Many of the state stores are much smaller than this. As per the bill, over half of the roughly 1200 stores will need to be over 15,000sf! These large stores often have lots of bottles, but by necessity need to focus on industrial products, not small producers. How is this going to increase selection? We don't need bigger Absolut displays. We need many smaller stores run by entrepreneurs who find and offer cool products. This bill would be the equivalent of mandating that over 50% of all restaurants be more than, say, 5000sf in size. Can you imagine what Philly would be like? A lot more Ruby Tuesdays, a lot less anything good. This aspect of the bill nearly makes it pointless to have privatization!”

I agree. The “protections” against private monopolies could be made much more effective by simply dropping the maximum licenses owned by any one company/person to ten instead of forty. Problem solved. If that loses support from big chains, well, first, too damned bad; and second, it will gain support from the people who are concerned about big chains grabbing all the licenses, and throttling selection. Who are we more concerned about? What’s good for business -- ho ho ho, don't you worry, little voter! -- is good for citizens? Sorry, that’s how we wound up with 75 years of the case law!

Finally, let the results of Granholm flow, and again: favor Pennsylvania’s citizens, not business interests who’d rather see no direct shipping of wine (or spirits or beer) because it might cut into their sales (studies show it doesn’t). Make the taxes realistic, and let direct shipping happen.

Those are the issues I have with HB11. I’d like to see them addressed, or explained, before I solidly support this bill. I've been told that some such changes are under way, but HB11 shows no changes online. Until such time as a majority of these issues are addressed and the police-enforced monopoly is done away with, I do not support this bill, and I urge you to consider these points before you support it. We have paid -- Lord God, we've paid -- for the misguided morality of our Repeal-era legislators and Governor Gifford Pinchot. We've earned a better road to privatization; one that takes our concerns into account first.

Where are we going to get that? I hope that Governor Corbett is doing what I'm starting to think of as his Swan Routine: serene and quiet on the surface, paddling like hell out of sight under the water. From the way he's talked about HB11 after the PFM Report came out (more on that soon) -- "a place to start" -- I don't think he likes it any more than I do. So here's hoping he puts leverage on Representative Turzai (and Jim Mann), or better, puts out his own version of a privatization bill that actually writes privatization for citizens.

The Case Law is Stupid, and the Pennsylvania Legislature is Too Scared to Admit It

2011-11-04T15:41:00.001-04:00

The Case Law is Stupid. Do I really need to tell you why? Okay, here: have a look. But that's okay, because...
The Case Law is Easy to Get Rid Of. Truly. Just strike the first sentence of Section 441, Paragraph b; and strike the entirety of Paragraph f (which is a complete abomination, and never should have been added). Next, you also drop the parts that say a tavern can only sell 198 oz. of beer or less at a time, and you're Done. It's not that hard to figure it out; all it takes is balls. Because the Pennsylvania Tavern Association is about the only group opposed to changing the case law; they say it would devalue their businesses (because they can sell sixpacks). Their lobbying group has been extremely successful at stopping what polls have shown over 80% of Pennsylvania voting citizens are in favor of: dumping the case law. Which proves that...
The Pennsylvania Legislature is too scared to change the stupid Case Law. Ask any legislator why we have the case law. They won't know. Ask them why they can't change it. They won't answer you.

Every time a legislator tries to change the case law -- and the first time I remember this happening was back in 1992! -- there's a lot of talk, a lot of excitement, and then two things happen. First, there's a ridiculously unnecessary "compromise," like saying distributors can sell six-packs, but not singles, or -- really useless -- they can sell 12-packs. Why?! There is no need for any restriction! But that doesn't really matter, because the second thing that happens is that the bill never, ever makes it out of committee. It dies. And we're still screwed.

Well, look. They're talking about privatization of the moldy old State Store System. One of the things that is completely wrong with the current proposal, that is a dealbreaker on Mike Turzai's HB11 bill, is that it ignores beer. Why? The division of beer from wine and spirits was never a natural thing to begin with. Look at other states: they have booze stores where you can buy all three of your faves (and cider, too). Beer is a missing piece of the puzzle.

Beat up your legislator on this. Tell them you want normal, rational, adult alcohol laws in the Commonwealth. Get the government out of the booze business, and kill the stupid Case Law by putting booze in stores with wine and liquor...where it belongs. Make it easy for beer distributors to get licenses to sell wine and liquor, hell, convert their licenses to 'all-alcohol' retail licenses. They've earned it.

Then tell your legislator that if they don't kill the case law, they're too cowardly to get your vote next November. This is our year. This is the year it happens. KILL THE STUPID CASE LAW!

New PLCB Chairman in Favor of Privatization

2011-11-04T12:17:00.001-04:00

Will new PLCB Chairman Skip Brion preside over the agency's demise?
Is Mike Turzai's HB11 the road to the promised land of privatization, or too flawed to survive?
Does the PFM report on privatization change anything?
Will Governor Corbett step in with his own proposal on privatization?
Does anyone other than Hereditary Union President For Life Wendell W. Young IV and State Store System employees ever write anything in favor of the PLCB in Pennsylvania newspapers?
Where's Joe "CEO" Conti disappeared to?

There's so much going on with the PLCB that it's hard to address it in one post...especially when I'm getting back to things after two months of heavy travel and a ton of work. So I'll give it a shot in a couple of posts instead. First: the latest news.

Joseph "Skip" Brion was confirmed as the newest member of the PLCB on Tuesday, Nov. 1, and immediately became Chairman. Brion is a Chester County Republican, a lawyer (what a shock...), and openly in favor of privatization. Brion will chair his first meeting next week, and has said the Board needs to "open itself up and be more in tune with what’s going on at the Capitol." That would certainly be a refreshing change, given how totally tone-deaf the PLCB has been in recent years.

But is anything really going to change because of this? Not likely. Brion may be pro-privatization, but he's still a politician, and that means that when the chips are down, privatization rhetoric aside, he's looking for more of your money -- sorry, more revenue -- to spend on programs of variable worth. So don't expect the high taxes that are the most unsupportable part of HB11 (yeah; more coming on that, and soon) to change.

In fact, Brion has made noises that he's interested in "modernizing" the PLCB. And that makes my heart sink. Because I can tell you exactly what will happen. They'll get some stuff through the Legislature -- how, I'll be damned if I know, because we can't seem to get a simple thing like killing the damned case law through in 20 years! -- and the We-Know-What-You-Really-Need Committee will continue their latest course of buying every single crackpot product that comes on the market (even though no one in the system has the slightest clue on what they are or how to sell them), and they'll make a big stinking deal out of it (spending millions more of your tax dollars on marketing a police-enforced monopoly)...and we'll be satisfied just enough to let privatization fade. And within five years, they'll be back to the same lackadaisical shit job they were doing two years ago before Tom Corbett came along and made privatization an issue and got them scared.

Is that too harsh? Think I don't know what I'm talking about? Well, friend, just cast your memory back to the Chairmanship of Jonathan Newman. Remember that? Back when "Chairman's Selection" actually meant something other than "No one else wanted this stuff, so they cut us a deal on it, and we bought a whole bunch and stuck it in a hot trailer for a while"? Because things were great for a while, and Newman was energized, and enthused, and then what always, inevitably happens at this agency happened: someone noticed a buttload of money, and started screwing with it. And all of a sudden we had Joe Da CEO popped in there -- because he had so much experience in off-premise retail and running a huge wholesaling operation, right? -- fiddling with the knobs and pulling on the strings. And the wheels fell off. If you don't think that exact same thing would happen after "modernization," I've got a bridge to sell you.

Don't fall for it. Stay staunch. Let's get rid of HB11, take Corbett's report, and forge a good privatization bill. Blow open the number of stores, find state jobs for the union clerks, get beer in there, kill the case law, open the borders, lower the ridiculously high taxes, and then watch jobs get created. Watch the restaurants in Philly bloom, watch our already great beer scene blossom, and watch the state catch up to the 21st century. Don't give up now: keep the pressure on your legislators.

More to come. Shortly.

Where's Joe "CEO" Conti disappeared to?

Wine Kiosks DEAD; Conti says, "It certainly wasn't a failure."

2011-09-21T10:12:00.002-04:00

The wine kiosks are dead, they've been taken off life support. As I predicted, the PLCB has used their trumped-up charges against the kiosks' hapless creator, the so-called "Simple Brands," as an exit strategy. They are leaving this debacle bruised, battered, smoking, and humiliated, the kiosks -- their bright, innovative idea to give the consumer what they want (that their own people told them was "deficient") -- rejected by Wegmans and Walmart as well as the state's consumers...and what does Joe Da CEO have to say about the whole thing, this 15-month circus of embarrassing failure?

"It certainly wasn't a failure."

and

"I still think there is merit to the program."

and

"It didn't end up successful, but we learned a lot and we will end up better for it."

Can we run a drug screen on this man? Because he is not in touch with reality at all.

So where are we...the program was an abject failure (except at making the PLCB's top management look like the arrogant, clueless bureaucrats they are), the PLCB is going after "Simple Brands" for $1.2 million in charges (that the company's lawyer -- finally making comment -- called "malarkey," noting that the PLCB was overbilling for maintenance and hardware) through the Board of Claims (a system Conti admitted was glacially slow, noting that one case took 18 years to settle), and, oh yeah, "Simple Brands" is suing the PLCB for $81 million in damages.

And the PLCB (and AG Jack Wagner, and Senator Scarnati) want us to "take off the handcuffs" of the Liquor Code to let them realize their full potential as a government-owned-and-run monopoly business? Maybe we ought to get out some actual handcuffs.

Regime Change?

2011-09-01T17:16:00.002-04:00

Privatization may or may not happen. I understand some of the Labor Party -- sorry, Democratic Party legislators are going to be proposing some changes to the PLCB and the Almighty Liquor Code (the ones PJ begged for to "untie their hands"), so the Legislature MAY stay lazy and keep the damned thing. Hey, let's be honest: we may be stuck with this swaybacked mule of a liquor system, this fossilized relic of Repeal, this coprolite.

In that case...could we at least have it run right? As I pointed out in a recent post, the current PLCB administration has presided over an absolute Carnival of FAIL. Can they be held responsible? I think they can. Check the new poll: PJ and Joe Da CEO should resign, or be fired. It's reached that point. As a "shareholder" in this cockamamie "business"...how do you vote?

Some wholesaler stuff

2011-08-31T12:20:00.001-04:00

I've been hearing a lot of -- well, a lot of crap from anti-privatization interests (which pretty much means PLCB bureaucrats, UFCW members, Democrat legislators, a couple social conservative Republican legislators, and...no, actually, that's about it) about how the wholesaling's going to be terrible under privatization (and if HB11 stays the way it is, it may well be, but that can -- and better! -- change before it's voted on), and how big stores are going to crush mom and pops and leave us with no choice (like we have a lot now).

This ignores, of course, what actually happens in states where private liquor sales are the norm -- like New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts -- and all kinds of stores thrive and the selection's just fine; real good, in fact, at many stores. Not all, but you don't have a great selection of groceries at every store that sells groceries, right? There's selection, there's specialization, there's price, and there's convenience to be considered.

Anyway, I was thinking about this when I saw this interview with Michael Binstein in Shanken News Daily [full disclosure: my major client, Malt Advocate, is owned by M.Shanken Communications...for what that's worth], the owner of the big Binny's chain of booze stores in Illinois. They have 25 stores, and the selection is tremendous; love going there when I'm in Chicagoland.

I saw some pertinent stuff that I wanted to share. Please notice: Binstein is bullish about expanding, not keeping a cap on his number of stores. He sees competition, and meets it (without the help of the state police). And he sees opportunity for wholesalers who want to work hard, and for small retailers. This is a smart guy, who knows the market, and is successful in it. Probably ought to give what he's saying some consideration.

This is not the whole interview.

SND: In the last four years, you’ve expanded from 19 stores to 25 stores, mostly through acquisition during a very difficult economy. Has your investment paid off? Binstein: The honest answer is that the investment is paying off. Time is the ultimate test, and one needs a certain amount of humility. But there’s not a single acquisition, store opening or expansion of our model that I would take back.
SND: How big a player are you in the greater Chicago market? Binstein: I’m told we’re the largest independent in the Midwest, and certainly the largest independent in Illinois.
SND: Who do you consider to be your biggest competitor in your market? Binstein: This is going to sound like a cliché, but I think anyone and everyone who holds a liquor license is competition, and there are tens of thousands of people who do. Convenience should not be underestimated. We may have the selection, we may have the best price, but with gasoline nearing $5 a gallon, people have to make tough decisions. Every player at every trade channel has a contribution to make. So there’s not a competitor that I minimize.
SND: Do you have any plans to expand to other states? Binstein: We’re keeping an open mind. We certainly have looked, and there are opportunities. But there are so many places within our market, so many communities and areas where we still think we could open a store. I think we’d like to finish Illinois before moving on.
SND: How are your relations currently with major suppliers?
Binstein: They can get very ideological—if not theological—about pricing. I think a bottle of wine, or liquor or beer, is like all commodities. It’s no different from selling soybeans, corn or wheat. It has a price, and it’s based on supply and demand, and it ebbs and flows in every market. Just as the corn, soybean or wheat broker or farmer can’t get too ideological or theological about what a bushel should cost, the same goes for our business. One of the oxymorons in our business is something called price integrity, when suppliers believe something should cost $20 or $30 and they don’t really care what the customer thinks it should cost. I think that’s a very myopic, unprogressive way of looking at business. This is not a very popular thing to say.
SND: How about wholesalers?
Binstein: There are bad retailers and there are bad wholesalers. There are lazy retailers and there are lazy wholesalers. I’ll leave it at that, but I will say that I think wholesalers have an opportunity, a very unique opportunity, to make themselves even more indispensable in this era of consolidation, because suppliers are looking for foster parents. Suppliers are no longer the primary caretakers of a brand. They may actually possess the birth certificate for the brand, but they need other people to nurture, raise and educate the brand. The suppliers have gotten away from brand-building, and now it falls more and more to the wholesaler and retailer to build those brands and fill that void.
SND: Are there still opportunities for small entrepreneurs in beverage alcohol retailing? Can a small, single-unit store survive and thrive in today’s climate?
Binstein: Absolutely. There’s never an opportunity to overcharge and under-deliver. As long as we’re not using code language to ask the question, “Is it still okay to work at outrageous margins and not give people the selection they deserve?” There should have never been that opportunity, and there isn’t that opportunity now. There’s room for the Davids and the Goliaths. And they both need each other.

"Just give me something"

2011-08-31T09:23:00.002-04:00

I was talking to a licensee (that's PLCB-speak for a bar owner) the other day about this whole thing. What do you guys think about the movements towards privatization, I asked her.*

"What kind of chances do you think it has?" she asked in response. "Is this really going to happen?" I said that I'd heard G. Terry Madonna, the Pennsylvania politics maven at Franklin & Marshall College (full disclosure: I am a proud F&M grad, class of 1981, and if you have high school age children, you should consider this excellent college.) discussing it; his opinion was that it was the best shot we'd had at privatization since Repeal...and he gave it a 40% shot. That was back in the spring, though, and things had moved forward since then; insiders tell me that the votes are there in the House, and the Senate's swinging our way (and there may yet be some action from a Marcellus Shale tax deal; a 'you vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours' kinda thing). So again, I said...what do the licensees think about this?

"I'll tell you," he* said, and paused. "The Tavern Owners don't know what to do. You know, it would be great; in other states, the Absolut rep would come to you and say, 'I got a deal on this week; you buy two cases, I give you this price,' and I could say, well, what can you give me if I buy four cases, and he'd say...ooookay, and he'd give me another price, and then, then I could pass that on to the customers, do a special that week." And, I said, not only that, they'd deliver it to you. "Right!" they both* said, beaming.

"But you know," he* continued, and got right in my face: "The prices we have to pay are crazy. We don't get a good discount. And the beer sales thing? [meaning the six-pack sale monopoly taverns currently have] We know the beer stores are going to get into wine and liquor sales if this goes private; they've got the money, they're already set up. We're going to lose a lot of takeout sales [we'd already guessed that wine and spirits in the distributors would mean sixpack sales there as well], I know that, but no one's putting anything for us in the privatization [bill]. Just give me something! Ease up some of the regulations, cut back on the fees; just give me something."

Why don't you say something, I asked. They* shook their heads, and she* said, "We don't know if it's going through." The implication was clear: no one wants to piss off the PLCB by being openly pro-privatization...and then face the bureaucrats if it fails.

My advice to the 'privateers' (as Hereditary Union President For Life Wendell W. Young IV has wittily tagged the pro-privatization forces): give them something. Put something in the bill that acknowledges licensees are getting a raw deal; level the playing field by putting no exclusivity on suppliers -- let licensees buy from whatever source they want -- or take off that ridiculous 'happy hour' restriction, or let all bars sell packaged goods (to-go wine, liquor, and beer) and don't tell them how they have to do it. You'll get a powerful ally...and be a giant step closer to getting privatization.

*Might have been a woman, might have been a guy, might have been a husband and wife; might have been around here, might have been up in Clinton County where I was vacationing...I ain't saying, for obvious reasons.

Auditor General: "The Board and the vendor lost credibility..."

2011-08-30T16:51:00.001-04:00

I'm back from vacation...and apparently just in time! Auditor General Jack Wagner's audit of the wine kiosk fiasco -- sorry, program -- is out today, and it's pretty much unforgiving. Well, the man's an auditor; of course it's not forgiving, that's not his job, and this was a fiasco. Some pertinent stuff (the full report's here in PDF format; the AG's statement is here (added emphases are mine, of course)):

Wagner’s special performance audit...chronicled the problems that existed from the beginning of the ill-fated kiosk program. The six findings, are:
The board used kiosk technology that effectively controlled the purchase of alcohol (about the only positive statement in the whole report)

The board followed state procurement requirements, but the request for proposals did not enable fair and just competition

The board and the sole responding vendor negotiated the kiosk contract in ways more advantageous to the vendor than necessary

The board spent $1.12 million more than it took in over two fiscal years and has invoiced the vendor for the losses. But the vendor has not paid

The board and the vendor lost credibility when the kiosks malfunctioned,

The board overstated the convenience of the kiosks

Note that he says "effectively controlled the purchase of alcohol." Not "efficiently," or "nonintrusively." The same thing could have been "effected" by a live person standing at each kiosk -- which the malfunctions eventually also required -- and the statement would have still been true. But weak competition on an RFP, vendor-favorable negotiations (when the vendor is heavily invested in campaign contributions to a sitting governor), losing money on a supposedly cost-free project, operation failures during the busiest sales season of the year, and the total cluelessness on the definition of "convenience?"

Look, read the statement, which covers most of this. Read the actual report, and pay particular attention to Section C, beginning on page 71, where the Board responds to the report. The AG's report takes that response and pretty much shreds it, saying over and over that the Board simply chose not to respond to some (the most awkward) of its findings.

But the message here? The wine kiosk program was a failure. Black and white, accountant-certified, this thing was a catastrophe. The break-even point -- as stated by the PLCB -- was 210 bottles a week per kiosk; only 3 out of 32 machines met that threshold; 17 -- over half! -- sold under 100 bottles a week. They simply didn't work: in the first three months of operation, "auditors determined that 1 out of every 21 transactions was problematic." That's leaving the general shadiness of the contract and the apparent lack of any escape hatch for the Board aside!

And the response from PJ Stapleton (who apparently may have been reading a different report)? "As it has done throughout this process, the Board will attempt to take whatever steps it can to maximize the possibility that the wine kiosk program will succeed."

PJ. Dude. It's over. Walmart blew you off. Wegmans blew you off. Where are you going to put these things? In Post Offices? In courthouses? Wait, wait, I know: how about in the State Stores!

As I have said for a long time, the major problem at this agency -- beyond the tonedeaf attitude, beyond the terrible business model, beyond the insane insistence that the little stores out in the sticks carry thousands of SKUs when there's no demand for them, beyond the personnel system that doesn't properly reward product knowledge and sales competence, beyond all these serious problems -- is hubris. PJ and his Pals on the Board, Joe Da CEO, and their lieutenants have consistently responded to criticism with an attitude of 'you don't understand, what you call failure is innovation; what you call unethical is faithful to the letter of the law; what you call inconvenient is controlling the best interests of the people of the Commonwealth.' As if we are somehow too stupid to see that this is simply very bad management.

Let me lay this out in such straightforward terms that it can't be ignored.

The wine kiosks are a public relations and sales disaster that have indeed cost the Board credibility
The very real disaster of the PLCB's Oracle-based inventory system (subject of another audit) that wound up costing the Board hundreds of thousands in ruined wine (though they say it's fine, and what the hell do they care) and ad hoc storage fees in an absolute orgy of managerial ignorance
The "courtesy contract," which exposed the PLCB's total lack of basic sales skills and was awarded in a way that showed poor judgment and created the appearance of a conflict of interest, not to mention being an expense that was not worthwhile...according to the AG again (in...yeah, another special audit)
The embarrassing spectacle of over 20 workers at the PLCB's Philly warehouse being fired for undisclosed "financial irregularities" -- and they are still "undisclosed" 10 months after Joe Da CEO promised an investigation
The PLCB's large number of unprofitable stores -- in a police-enforced monopoly -- and questionable business models
The beer registration raid fiasco, where the PLCB's ineptly-kept beer registration database led to pathetically comic 'raids' by armed BLCE officers on three respectable Philly restaurants and one respectable Philly wholesaler, costing them thousands in lost time and sales (read it all here and here)
The terrible record on nuisance bars (sure, it's the BLCE doing the enforcement, but the PLCB does the administrative punishment, and it's soooooo sloooooowwww....)

That's just in three years. Three years! I mean, speaking pragmatically, PJ and Conti have been a godsend; they're making my job easier. But speaking as a PA taxpayer? When are they going to resign because of their incompetence?! These are major screwups, this is a terribly run agency that lurches from one disaster to another, reacting to the Legislature, arrogantly ignoring the Governor and lawyerly disagreeing with the black and white criticisms of the Auditor General. But who do they answer to? Apparently no one. Which is, in my mind, one of the biggest Reasons of all that they need to be completely restructured, and the retail monopoly taken away from them.

A Plea for Civility; a plea for truth

2011-08-15T10:31:00.000-04:00

First, watch this video. It's Joe "Da CEO" Conti wrapping up his testimony at last week's Liquor Control Committee hearings (which were, apparently, largely about Conti and Hereditary Union President For Life Wendell W. Young IV speaking for as long as they could...probably because they know that if you talk till lunch, most legislators will leave and not give any time to your opponents) with "a little bit of a challenge for civility to the proponents of the bill (HB11)."

He then quoted legislative press offices and "a think tank" -- which I assume is the Commonwealth Foundation -- making remarks about the PLCB and him that...well, they were things like "The PLCB doesn't care about the consumer; ineptitude, goofy, or systematic malfeasance," and "a state system that is broke, even Joe Conti realizes it," and "a state of perpetual tone-deafness...the PLCB should stop acting like coneheads and communists."

Okay, Joe's feelings are hurt. (Mine are too; he didn't say anything about some of the stuff I've said about the PLCB.) But he's clearly never been the target of a Tony Auth cartoon (looks like a conehead to me). This is the "rough and tumble of public life:" man up. I get hate mail all the time -- really, people actually bother -- and you don't see me crying about it, and certainly not to a legislative committee...oh, right. Conti is a former legislator (who didn't get re-elected because he was completely tone-deaf about the legislative pay increases a few years back), and he's looking for professional courtesy from former colleagues. Nice. If only we could all expect such courtesy.

But he blew it -- for me, at least, and I hope for anyone else with a spot of brain matter -- when he then immediately started spouting the UFCW party line about newspapers. See, the UFCW has seen that almost every newspaper across the state has editorialized in favor of privatization, often scathingly, and they needed a response. Their response: the newspapers are doing it for money, because of all the advertising bucks they'll make off private liquor stores. (Though the PLCB spends big bucks on advertising now, and the Inky runs full-page ads for cross-border liquor stores -- more proof of border bleed, Joe.)

So Conti's pleading for "civility," and the first thing he says after that "challenge" is this: "Now we understand many of the proponents are financiers of print media. I've met with most of them, they're very up-front about it, we get that. We understand that the think tank perhaps receives funding from these financiers..." And then he drops that, and goes off in a completely different direction of how "we welcome" this debate ("relish it," he also said). But he's slyly planted the stinking smear-seed that maybe the Commonwealth Foundation is just doing this for money, at the behest of "financiers" who are just doing it for money. Says that, and doesn't back it up, or have the guts to stick it home. Does he deserve civility?

And then he -- well, I was about to say "he lies," but let's be civil and say he once again clouds the issue by saying "If we disappear, your income tax has to go from 3.07 to 3.21 [percent]. You know that." What's he talking about? He's talking about The Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax and the 6% state sales tax that make up approximately 3/4 of the PLCB's "contribution" to the General Fund. And he's 'clouding the issue' by leaving you with the impression that if the PLCB is no longer the state's booze seller, no booze taxes will be collected, and the state will make up the difference with income tax. That's not lying, but it's the next best (worst?) thing.

He goes on to shamelessly wrap himself in the flag. Better get a kleenex ready. "We must be mindful when you walk by a playground, speak to a Rotary Club or a local Chamber, or when you visit a senior center, those Pennsylvanians are benefiting by the performance of this agency. And we get up every day, and we want to do a better job for the people of Pennsylvania. There's really no reason for the incivility we see." He's made selling vodka into an altruistic mission; amazing.

So right after saying there's no reason for incivility...he makes a threat!* Conti issues a challenge (he's got a whole pocketful, apparently) "Michael [Turzai] and Jonathan [Newman] and Matthew [Brouillette]" to debate the issues. "But let's keep it on point, because I'm warning you: if you get off point...[dramatic pause] I'm for the people of Pennsylvania. And anything that either purposely or inadvertantly diminishes our performance and diminishes our return, hits the pocketbook of the people of Pennsylvania, the innocent folks who may not be as emotionally invested in this as you, as the proponents are."

Conti calls for us all to be civil. Then he smears the intentions of the proponents of privatization, he deliberately misstates the results of privatization, he claims moral high ground (for an agency that performs retail sales?), and dramatically threatens his opponents. I don't owe Joe Conti anything. He's trying to set the terms of this debate to benefit the PLCB and himself. He says "financiers" perhaps fund the privatization proponents? He benefits directly from privatization not happening; he has a $150,000 a year job that will disappear if privatization goes through! Is it uncivil to bring that up?

What's civil in political discourse? No one's brought anyone's personal life into this (with the necessary exception of the husband-wife relationship between the winner of the PLCB's 'courtesy contract' and his wife, the PLCB regional manager), no one's made any personal threats, no one -- to the best of my knowledge -- has engaged in anything beyond a bit of name-calling. Does Conti ever watch Fox News or MSNBC (or Olbermann, wherever the hell he is now)? There is no need for excess civility; it's clearly an attempt to hobble the debate in favor of the PLCB and the status quo.

Meanwhile, Conti has other problems. It appears that earlier in the hearing he lied -- sorry, Stacey Witalec says Conti "misspoke," whatever -- about the PLCB's committee looking at the wine kiosks. That's in the Tribune-Review today. "In response to a question about that recommendation, Conti told the House Liquor Control Committee the report did not recommend against the LCB's plan." Oops, turns out not to be the case: "A review by LCB Chief Counsel Faith Diehl found the final report "recommends against going forward and does contain the word deficient," Witalec wrote in an e-mail.

Where's the civility in lying -- sorry, misspeaking, I keep getting that wrong -- to a state legislative committee made up of your former colleagues?

*He also makes an amazingly inappropriate Blazing Saddles reference, but you'll have to watch the video, words don't do it justice. And remember the actual line that Conti bowdlerizes...amazing.

PLCB Spirits Selection Sucks...just like we always said it did

2011-08-14T22:12:00.000-04:00

I don't have numbers to support some of the things I thoroughly believe about the PLCB; one of those things is that the spirits selection sucks. Well, the whisky and cognac/armagnac selection in particular. But I didn't know for sure, I was basing it on what I'd seen in privately-owned liquor stores.

Nathan Lutchansky (PLCB Users Group blog) has the numbers, and it turns out we were right. Nathan got the numbers on how many different spirits the PLCB offers in a variety of categories (and actually different; not different sizes or gift packages of the same spirit), and compared it to four well-known destination stores: Astor, Binny's, Party Source, and BevMo. Take a look; it's an eye-opener.

The two most damning? Single malts: the PLCB offers a paltry 37, while the next smallest amount (BevMo) is 132, almost four times as many. The other? You won't believe it, but it's vodka. Add non-flavored and flavored together, and the PLCB offers 179, and we've often said they have too many...but in this group? They come in fourth out of five. They can't even do that right!

Hard numbers prove it: the selection at the PLCB sucks.

Wine Kiosk Debacle Footnote

2011-08-12T21:14:00.002-04:00

The Commonwealth Foundation has posted the documents referred to in my previous Wine Kiosk post -- the ones where the PLCB's own internal evaluation committee advised against the wine kiosks -- here.

I don't really think any further comment is necessary.

State Stores Lose Money...and the PLCB's proud of it

2011-08-12T13:05:00.001-04:00

In the Bizarro World of the PLCB, where crap selection and lackadaisical service make a store "world-class," apparently it is also a good thing to have 45 stores (out of 620-ish, about 7%) losing money! Is this all about the PLCB's touted "Serve The Rural Areas With Booze!" program (see below; sorry about the Chinese Communist Party-style title, it's almost irresistible with the PLCB)? Not completely, it seems like it's more about the PLCB's business incompetence. Check out this piece at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which reports that "The LCB data obtained by the Tribune-Review show that the losing stores weren't all rural: Two stores in Brighton Heights and Downtown and one in Philadelphia were unprofitable in 2009-10."

But put aside how completely awful at business you have to be to not run a profit when you have a police-enforced monopoly. Joe "Da CEO" Conti says it's a good thing! Here he is in an AP story about yesterday's hearings:

Conti said a standard state store carries nearly 2,500 types of liquor and wine*, and that the board maintains stores in rural areas, even when they are not profitable, as a matter of fairness for consumers, which may not be the case under privatization.
"The bill cannot force a grocery store to bid for a license," said Dale Horst, the PLCB's director of retail operations. "If the PLCB can't make any money because the sales volume is simply not there, these areas may not be served at all."

Here's a thought: the number of stores in the state is set by the PLCB, not by law. They claim it's to cut down on drunkenness, on the ill effects of alcohol abuse. Really? Or is it because they've already got stores in all the areas that can make money using their horribly inefficient business model? Wouldn't it make more sense to go private, and allow the local grocery store to sell wine and sixpacks, and liquor if they want to, than to force a State Store to carry 2,500 different kinds of booze?

Check this assbackwards reasoning. They won't allow specialty stores in Philly and Pittsburgh to carry a large selection of wines and spirits, like the big stores right across the border, but they'll tell you that you can "easily" order from 30,000 selections (you know, odd sizes, and double-entered SLO/on-shelf items, but it's a lot, Joe Da CEO says so!) on their SLO system and have it delivered (to the store, not to YOUR house, that would be too easy). But then they turn around and force rural stores to carry a relatively broad selection of stuff -- and lose money on it! -- rather than pare it down to a reasonable selection...and let them order other stuff by SLO! I mean, if I lived in Snow Shoe, I suppose I'd be glad, but it's not like it makes sense.

Of course it doesn't. It's Bizarro State. Fix it. Privatize, boost the number of licenses, and kill the case law. Let the PLCB focus on enforcement. Fix the booze tax situation. Make booze law that serves the citizens instead of bureaucrats and business. Please.

*Compare that to the 13,000 SKUs of liquor, wine, and beer at the latest Total Wine to open in Florida. Or, if you'd rather, compare it to under 500 SKUs at almost any gas station or drug store in rural Maryland...which most rural Pennsylvanians would find incredibly convenient compared to having to drive an hour to get to a part-time State Store in one of the nine Pennsylvania counties that only have ONE State Store. Conti and Hereditary Union President For Life Wendell W. Young IV will tell you that lots of stores with a minimal selection is so much worse than one store in the 522 square miles of Adams County, or the one store in the 898 square miles of Clinton County, or one in the 405 square miles of Wyoming County...If only the Legislature would kill the case law, or change the ridiculously strict population limits on licenses, or...something. Something like privatization.

TableLeaf: so much money for another bad idea

2011-08-12T00:55:00.000-04:00

Back in 2009, we heard rumors that the PLCB was considering changing the name on the State Store System. They were spending a lot of money on it, too: $3.7 million, which may seem a bit exorbitant, considering you're talking about changing the name on a Police-Enforced Monopoly retail system. I mean, what were we going to do...buy our booze at the State Store 10 miles away instead? (Or, if you live in, say, Potter County, at the State Store 110 miles away?) What a waste: why does the State Store even bother? We are forbidden by law to buy booze anywhere else. What the hell do they care?

After spending the money (with a California-based firm, thanks so much, because Pennsylvania firms are all staffed by dopes, apparently), the best they could come up with was "Table Leaf." Which means...what, exactly? Anything to do with the best-selling vodka (Jacquin's Royale, very high-end), or the best-selling wine (Sutter Home White Zin, the plonker's choice)? No, not much to do with anything, and I was waiting to crucify them when they plastered that on the front.

Well, unfortunately, they came to their senses, and just call the State Stores "Fine Wine and Good Spirits." Dopey, right? Still, they'd spent all that money coming up with "Table Leaf," so they stuck it to another brilliant program: a house brand wine. They've recently rolled out TableLeaf Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Chardonnay. (Note that there seems to be some disagreement on whether it's "TableLeaf" or "Table Leaf." Typical.)

So...the PLCB loves its suppliers so much that they've decided to go into competition against them! They're not satisfied with swinging their ponderous regulatory and monopoly weight against beer retailers;* they're going to use it against winemakers too!

Think about it, say you're Cycles Gladiator Cabernet Sauvignon, a nice wine we've bought for BYO dinners. You're on the shelf at the State Store System for $9.99, a good price. So now, your retailer, wholesaler, and regulator suddenly throws in their own brand, in direct competition, at $8.99...oh, and by the way, it shows up as an alternative selection every time you look at a cabernet sauvignon on the PLCB website, and you know damned well every clerk knows about it when people ask for a cab. I'd feel hard done by, but what are you going to say? You going to complain to your regulator? Not likely.

Kinda good to see the PLCB acting like the dominating, monopolistic SOBs they actually are, you know? This is government directly undercutting private business by manipulating their law-granted, police-enforced monopoly status. Is this fair? Privatize!

*Remember Dominic Origlio's line from the beer registration fiasco hearings? "I would be remiss without mentioning what I believe is the underlying cause of these regulatory and enforcement problems. Pennsylvania's beer industry is regulated by its competitor -- the Liquor Control Board, a state run corporation which sells wine and liquor."

Wine Kiosks...what a beautiful debacle

2011-08-11T09:38:00.000-04:00

The ridiculous Wine Kiosks have turned out to be a microcosm of the PLCB: corrupt, incompetent, inconvenient, bloated, and wildly unpopular with Pennsylvania citizens. They are, as I predicted, a public relations disaster for the PLCB.

The bidding process was suspect (a single-bid contract).
The company that made them, Simple Brands LLC (again...a "hi-tech" company with no website?), was suspect (company officers were mostly large Rendell donors, and the principal's main experience before was with neonized skeeball machines).
The contract was suspect (the PLCB kept saying the machines didn't cost them anything...except maintaining and supplying them, and the drone employees looking at videocamera feeds in Harrisburg, and then the drone employees sitting beside the malfunctioning behemoths).
The machines themselves were crap.
The whole concept was flawed from the beginning...and the PLCB knew it.

Eh? What was that last bit? Crazy, but true: jump to this story in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and read about how the PLCB received a report from an internal committee prior to signing the wine kiosk contract, a report that strongly advised against going forward with the contract. For instance, the committee pegged the top problem: the kiosk idea simply sucked.

"The committee has a general concern that the proposed process for purchasing products via the kiosk machine is cumbersome and may meet with public criticism for not being 'user-friendly,'" according to the evaluation memo submitted by Matthew Bembenick, a middle manager who recently left his position with the LCB.

The committee had real problems with Simple Brands, the way they operated, and the contract they presented.

The memo also addressed concerns that Simple Brands continually changed its business plan "on the fly as the committee has broached operational issues and concerns." According to the memo, "The committee is concerned that the lack of a coherent business plan will open the [LCB] up to public criticism and could contribute to a potential project failure."

Smart people they had working at the PLCB...too bad they not only didn't listen to them, they completely disowned the report, and 'disappeared' it in Orwellian fashion:

The day after the committee submitted its recommendation, an attorney for the LCB instructed employees to hand over all hard copies of the report and to delete all electronic copies.

Now...spokesperson Stacey Witalec is quoted in the piece saying that it's normal to destroy electronic copies, it's to maintain the integrity of the original; no bits and pieces floating around. As an old records management type, I can understand that. But...hard copy? That's damage control, and when you do damage control before something even goes public? DING DING DING DING! That's a serious red flag. Hope the upcoming AG audit on the wine kiosks knows about this.

Meanwhile, the PLCB is fighting an endgame with Simple Brands that looks a lot like a desperate search for an exit strategy that will allow them to can the wine kiosks with a statement that clears them of any blame (or stupidity) while pinning the failure on Simple Brands. Have a look. Simple Brands is exposed as the fly-by-night operation it always was; the PLCB is lashing out in an attempt to blame the failure of the kiosks on the company that they were warned was problematic. No one wants these misbegotten monsters, and is that a surprise to anyone?

The kiosks are clearly a failure; they were flawed from Day One, functioned below expectations, were despised by the very people they were meant to enthrall, and every party involved is racing away from the stench of their rotting demise. The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial staff put it so well last month.

With any luck, though, the Commonwealth's beleaguered wine-droid army will someday have one proud distinction: It will be regarded in retrospect as the LCB's Waterloo. Rarely before has any government agency so succinctly, thoroughly, and convincingly made the case for its own elimination.

With any luck, indeed.

New poll: serious this time

2011-08-07T11:34:00.002-04:00

With privatization actually in play, I've decided to do something different here. I've put up a poll that's actually serious, rather than just an attempt to raise consciousness through humor. Take a look at the upper right corner of the blog, you'll see the new poll on what concerns you have about privatization, either directly with HB11 or in general. You can vote for more than one issue; please feel free to do so, and please spread the word -- I'd love to see a big response on this one. If you have a concern that's not on the poll, feel free to make a comment on this post. Cheers!

Special note to UFCW and ISSU members: once your "talking points" arguments have been made once in the comments, I won't publish them again. The 'tax collection' and 'Walmart' arguments have been made; the 'no stores in small towns' red herring has been displayed. Make new points, or don't bother; no 'avalanches' here, thank you. Of course, that goes for already posted pro-privatization arguments as well; please read the comments before adding your own.

Is the PLCB on the ropes?

2011-08-07T08:45:00.000-04:00

The efforts for privatization have gotten two major boosts recently (and yes, I am keeping track; it's just been really busy in my job, the money-making part of my booze-centered life -- my apologies for not keeping up here). One was related to the misbegotten wine kiosks (which I did predict would be a "public relations disaster for the PLCB", though that didn't take much brainpower), and I'll talk about that in a separate post; the other was a far-flying boomerang that came back and caught the PLCB in the back of the head.

Jonathan Newman, in favor of privatization

The boomerang, first: former PLCB Chairman Jonathan Newman, the Chairman for whom the original "Chairman's Selection" was named (because it was his program, and he picked the wines...ask PJ Stapleton how many of the "Chairman's Selections" he's selected), who brought the PLCB further into the 20th century (yes, while working in the 21st century, I know) than any other person, who was
Wine Enthusiast's 2003 Man of the Year because of his work at the PLCB, who resigned when Governor Rendell appointed* Joe Conti as "CEO" of the PLCB... Newman came out strongly in favor of privatization this past Tuesday. At a hastily-arranged press conference at The Wine School in Philadelphia, Newman was introduced by PA House Speaker Mike Turzai and stated his support for privatization of the State Stores. (Happily, "hastily-arranged" also meant that the speakers weren't harassed by scripted questions and chants from UFCW members and union president Wendell W. Young IV.)

I was there, and Newman sat me down at a table with Speaker Turzai, and we talked. Chances sound better than I'd been hoping; it looks like the votes are there for privatization in the House, the Senate is going to take more work. You may have heard that Senate Pro Tem Joe Scarnati questioned the need to privatize the State Stores right now. That came up, and while Turzai had nothing to say, others in the room nodded wisely when I brought up the Marcellus Swap Theory: is Scarnati signaling that he will support privatization if other legislators will support a Marcellus Shale tax/fee of some kind? I believe that's what's going on, and I say, that's a deal I'm willing to support.

I'm not nuts about Turzai's bill, and if some changes aren't made, I can't support it; I'm hopeful that it will get better. I did take the opportunity to ask if the bill takes away the Police-Enforced Monopoly. It does not, but Turzai said the Monopoly is not enforced (though he did admit that there are occasional instances when it is...usually having to do with personal issues with a local cop in a border town), and would not be enforced. I don't like that, I'd much rather see it formally done away with. That's one of the things I'll be pushing for. More to come on that, but about Newman...

The UFCW has, of course, already tried to tar Newman with doing this because of possible financial gain. First, Newman is doing this for the same reason we all are: the PLCB State Stores suck, and they've sucked more since Newman left. The PLCB has stepped in crap -- ethically, managerially -- so may times since Conti took over that it's hard not to link him to it. Second, if Newman stands to make some money off this -- he does have a wine wholesaling company -- well, so what? That's what private enterprise is all about! Of course he'll support it. Only the Union thinks making money is a problem. The Union thinks that the State should be collecting all profits, apparently. That is ridiculous, and one more reason we should privatize.

More soon. Things are rolling, and we've got to get loud in support -- and in making this a good bill.

*Rendell says he "hired" Conti, but that implies a regular hiring process applied to this $150,000 a year job, which it didn't -- which is why Newman resigned.

PLCB toots own horn, shows amazing knowledge of market

2011-07-06T16:20:00.000-04:00

Just got this off my daily email from Shanken News Daily:

After Record Year, PLCB Chairman Says Premiumization Will Be Key To Further Gains
Following yesterday’s announcement of a 4% sales increase to $1.96 billion in the year through June at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), chairman Patrick “P.J.” Stapleton III told Shanken News Daily that future growth will depend on consumer trading-up patterns. “In the past year, most of the growth came from the premium to budget level,” Stapleton said, adding that he hasn’t seen much premiumization in recent months. Still, the new fiscal year has started off strongly. “The first weekend of July was very encouraging,” he said. “On a same-store comparison with last year, we were up 8.3%. So there are signs that we’ll have another very good year, but the extent of that will depend on consumer buying patterns and whether they’re willing to trade up.”
Pennsylvania overtook Michigan as the top spirits control state in calendar 2010 and remains by far the largest control market for wine, which accounts for around half of its dollar sales. The PLCB’s Chairman’s Selection premium wine program—up 19% to over $50 million in the fiscal year—is growing in popularity. Chairman’s Selection wines range from $8 to over $100—with wines normally selling for $20-$50 often discounted to between $10-$15 within the program. Stapleton said the $10-$15 range continues to be the sweet spot for wine market growth in the Keystone State. He added that the PLCB has abandoned plans to extend its supermarket wine kiosk program into spirits, acknowledging that the kiosk initiative has had a “rocky road” so far.

Let's parse this. The PLCB is making much of their 4% sales increase and record "contribution" to the State's General Fund. Of course they are, they know they're in deep crap, and "revenue" is like shiny bits of glass and tasty pieces of bacon and chocolate to legislators: irresistible. This ignores that the State Store System has the humiliating advantage of the Police-Enforced Monopoly to force us to buy whatever they put out there, and also ignores that PA's liquor and wine taxes are bizarrely high (have a good look at that report; we'll be talking about that soon, too).

Then, "premiumization"? Jeez, PJ, are you behind the freakin' curve again, or what? Premiumization's only been the biggest news in spirits for the past ten years, y'know? Once again, the PLCB is wickedly late to the game.

Hey, here's a thought: given that the PLCB doesn't seem to know squat about selling, maybe the sales are at a record because inflation continues to drive up prices, the monopoly is still firmly in place, and the economy has recovered somewhat in PA (and alcohol was not severely affected by the recession to begin with)? Hmmm? Show me what the PLCB has done -- other than the brilliant kiosk program -- to earn any kind of praise for what largely looks like an act of nature, and I'll consider it. Face it, PJ: Pennsylvanians buy from the State Store System because they have to. They have no other choice. If you can't make money at that, you might as well practice law.

Guess people want to know!

2011-07-01T10:17:00.000-04:00

I honestly find this hard to believe, and I'm sure it will correct itself soon, but...the blog-rating service Wikio has started a segment for spirits blogs, and somehow..."Why the PLCB Should Be Abolished" came in fourth. Sweet. Thanks for reading, and spread the word. Things are starting to move, there are competing ideas for privatization, and we may have a great idea for a mass public movement to dramatize just how serious Pennsylvanians are about privatization. Stay tuned!

1	Alcademics
2	Imbibe Unfiltered
3	Off The Presses
4	Why The PLCB Should Be Abolished
5	RumDood.com
6	What Does John Know?
7	Underhill-Lounge
8	The Cocktail Chronicles
9	Mixology Monday
10	Drinkhacker.com
11	Liquidity Preference
12	Jeffrey Morgenthaler
13	The Chuck Cowdery Blog
14	Kaiser Penguin
15	Looka!
16	Tipsy Texan
17	A Dash of Bitters
18	SLOSHED!
19	Beachbum Berry
20	cocktail virgin slut
21	drink dogma
22	Cocktailians
23	A Mountain Of Crushed Ice
24	Blogging Tales of the Cocktail: 2010
25	Dr. Bamboo
26	Caskstrength
27	MC Slim JB
28	The Dizzy Fizz
29	Drinks for the House
30	Spice & Ice, and more...

Ranking made by Wikio

Or Maybe Not: privatization bill coming soon

2011-06-23T11:56:00.000-04:00

Okay, maybe I got carried away. Because I wrote to Representative Taylor after my last post, and asked him why he was giving the PLCB what they wanted, their "False Dawn Initiative," the "alternative to privatization." I was despondent. Then I got this response, and I feel all better. Check it out:

"At this time, Representative Turzai has not introduced his privatization bill. I fully expect this bill to be introduced within the next 10 days."

I almost forgot to read the rest of the letter. Here we go, people, here we go. Are you ready to do something? Are you ready to write your reps (and copy Taylor and Turzai and the Governor), are you ready to go to Harrisburg? Are you ready to take part in a civil disobedience demonstration against the unAmerican Pennsylvania booze sale monopoly law that could get you fined or even taken to jail? More to come.

Taylor Privatization Letter June 23

And I thought Joe Da CEO was clueless...

2011-06-23T11:45:00.000-04:00

Check out this tone-deaf defense of the wine "kiosk" debacle by PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton in today's Inquirer.So much amazing stuff here, like this: "it is worth remembering that Wegmans made an investment with full knowledge that the kiosk reached far outside the face-to-face customer service Wegmans was accustomed to providing." So it was Wegmans' fault that the "kiosks" were so far to the left on the customer service bell curve that you couldn't see them with binoculars; they knew that these machines were supposed to operate on their own and should not have been surprised by that. Got it, PJ! Wegmans is crazy! (Well, except...the "kiosks" didn't operate that well on their own, which is probably what surprised and eventually seriously disappointed Wegmans.)

More? How about this petulant foot-stamping: "The wine kiosk was evidence of innovation at its finest, something the wine and spirits industry had not seen before. This made it an easy target for criticism." It clearly was not "innovation at its finest," since it didn't work the way it was supposed to. It was a kludge, an ATM welded to a soda machine, bolted to a security camera, with a breathalyzer duct-taped on the front (note: that was sarcastic, and no actual duct tape is used in the "kiosks." I don't think so, anyway). That's what made it an easy target for criticism...which both Wegmans and the Inquirer recognized. Not to mention...it was unnecessary "innovation," since there's already modern technology available to do what the wine "kiosk" was supposed to do, and do it better: it's called shelves.

Then he winds up with this whiny crap: "...what we could use is fewer inaccurate political attacks and more productive discussion and action on behalf of all Pennsylvania consumers." First: not political. It's an unpopular bureaucracy. No politics involved. Second: not inaccurate. Wegmans said the "kiosks" didn't work and made their stores look bad. They demonstrably didn't work as advertised, and that definitely makes the stores look bad (not to mention, taking up valuable retail space while they weren't working).

Finally, what would be "more productive discussion"? They give PJ space with a straight face, and that's not the first time the PLCB has been allowed on the editorial page. The PLCB doesn't want to discuss this, they want to keep doing what they're doing. Sorry, no longer on the agenda. Privatization hearings are coming, PJ: put on your dancing shoes.

And be sure to read the comments. Wow. Hope these people write their reps with anger like that.

Is Privatization Bad for your Health?

2011-06-21T10:25:00.000-04:00

The guys at Freakonomics have always struck me as a bit too quick to jump on the anti-alcohol wagon; sure, there are valid points to be made for the social costs of alcohol abuse, but the numbers that are out there would really benefit from a closer look. But this piece was handled more fairly, I thought, even though the big quote from the Herzenberg study overweighted things a bit.

Thing is, as the comments pointed out, the whole argument that privatization increases consumption is quite likely a flawed one, based on questionable methodology: "retail purchase" is a reliable substitute for "consumption." That sounds okay, till you consider how many Pennsylvanians cross the Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey borders to buy caselots of booze. Look, if my DAD did it, I know plenty of other Pennsylvanians are doing it. Hell, I'm in Kentucky right now, and I have four bottles of bourbon that I can't get in PA in the car (Old Fitz BiB, Heaven Hill 6 Year Old BiB, and Charter 101 (the 4th is a surprise for someone, but trust me: it's not available in PA!); I'm planning on giving them all away before I return to PA, though...).

It doesn't even pass the "straight face test," to use a popular Washington phrase. If consumption in these newly privatized states and provinces were really up by 48%...where's the corresponding increase in alcohol-related problems? Because there is none. We're being sold a sack of crap again.

Republicans Selling Privatization Down the River

2011-06-18T14:26:00.000-04:00

I hate to say this, but privatization may be dead...again. And to my deep disappointment, it's the Republicans in the state Legislature who are killing it. Check out this action in committee this week:

o HB 260 (Rep. John Taylor, R-Philadelphia): Allows the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to implement customer relations marketing programs to offer incentives to customers, extends the Sunday closing time from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., removes the limit on the number of stores allowed to operate on Sundays, increases the range of fines for minor violations of the Liquor Code from between $50-$1,000 to between $100-$2,000, and increases the range of fines for major violations of the Liquor Code from between $1,000-$5,000 to between $2,000-$10,000.
o HB 1356 (Rep. Scott Petri, R-Bucks): Allows the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) to hire employees outside of the Civil Service Act, allows the PLCB to establish a classification and compensation for these employees that shall not be subject to the Administrative Code, and allows the PLCB to purchase all goods and services deemed necessary at its sole discretion.

Let me translate that for you. HB 260 will let the PLCB offer coupons and 'membership' programs, open all their stores till 9 PM on Sundays, and dump more money into the PLCB's budget through fines (fines that are, I'd remind you, imposed by what amounts to an independent system of courts and police). HB 1356 will allow the PLCB to become a total patronage pesthole, hiring whoever they see fit -- under the guise of hiring wine and spirits "experts," experts along the line of Joe Da CEO, I assume -- and buying whatever they want -- more kiosks? more crap vodka brands? more 7' tall bumblebee costumes? -- without any oversight.

I can make it simpler: the Republicans in the Legislature are lining up to give the PLCB bureaucrats everything they asked for to stave off privatization. Why? Cui bono might be a better question. Who got to these guys? Why are they not listening to the voters and citizens of Pennsylvania, who have been consistently polling at over 2/3 in favor of flat-out privatization?

Do you give a damn about privatization? Write your legislator, ask them why they're preparing to ignore the will of the people on this. If privatization goes away this time, it's going to be 20 years before we get another shot at it.

Why prices matter (and why they don't)

2011-06-05T08:50:00.001-04:00

First, read this story in the Inquirer (which they picked up from the Harrisburg Patriot-News). It's about prices at the State Stores vs. prices in private stores in border states. Here's a sample:

But a survey of liquor stores in four states conducted by the Harrisburg Patriot-News reveals that prices aren't always better across the state line. In fact, in some cases, Pennsylvania prices are cheaper.
A 750-milliliter bottle of Bacardi Superior P.R. Rum sells for $14.99 in Pennsylvania and $15.99 at Plaza Wines & Liquors in Manchester, N.J. A Yellow Tail Chardonnay is $7.99 in Pennsylvania and $8.99 at the New Jersey store.
Across the border in Delaware, a 1.75-liter bottle of Johnnie Walker Red is priced at $29.99 at Total Wine & More vs. the $41.99 Pennsylvania shoppers pay.

This is a "survey" conducted by the paper. Look, I know Sue Gleiter, I like her. She's interviewed me for stories, including some on the PLCB, but this is kind of sloppy. There's no information given on how many stores were 'surveyed' or how the 'survey' was done. I'd like to see one done like the supermarkets do it around here; don't check individual prices and show me WOW THIS ONE ITEM IS C*H*E*A*P*E*R* AT OUR STORE!!! Fill a typical cart and add up the total (and don't fill it at the PLCB's "outlet stores" on the border where prices are kept artificially low by adding liter bottles at cut-rate prices...that the rest of us in the state can't get).

Next, read this letter in today's Inky from wine writer (and Pennsylvania resident) Mark Squires. He rips the story a new hole:

A story on May 24, "Pa. liquor often cheaper than in neighboring states," was an example of sloppy analysis and virtual propaganda. Of course, you can find instances when Pennsylvania prices might be cheaper on a particular item. With the 18 percent Johnstown tax, though, prices won't be cheaper overall or cheaper all the time.
In Pennsylvania, you aren't allowed to shop around because the Liquor Control Board is a monopoly. If you find a store in New Jersey with a bad price, you can go to another store. Or to Maryland, Delaware, wherever. Not every little private store may be exemplary, but there can be little doubt that, taken together, private stores win on service, selection, and price.
Incidentally, I was able to find online in about 90 seconds a 2010 Yellow Tail Chardonnay in a variety of stores ranging from under $5 to $6.33 in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, while the writer of the aforementioned article merely found that Pennsylvania, at $8, was cheaper than one New Jersey store.

Dead on the money, so to speak, and the bolded bits strike home to the real problem with the PLCB: the monopolistic nature of it. They have no real competition when it comes to Pennsylvanians, and we are a captive audience, forced to buy at these stores by the coercion of law.And yet...we put up with that, and seem willing to allow legislators like Senator John Pippy run our lives and make our decisions. For God's sake, Pennsylvanians, stand up on your hind legs and act like adults. Tell your legislator that you don't need to be CONTROLLED any longer.

Wegmans to PLCB: get these lemons out of our store

2011-06-02T21:11:00.001-04:00

Ah, it's sweet when another dopey plan by the PLCB is a complete failure. WGAL-TV in Lancaster is reporting that the Wegmans grocery store chain has requested the PLCB to remove the wine kiosks from their stores. Check out the story here; and you can read the actual letter here. It's wonderful to be so right about something; the wine kiosks have been an unadulterated disaster. They were unwieldy, they were insulting, they were the result of graft and crap, they were another desperate and obvious attempt to stave off privatization, but worst of all, they didn't even work. Permit me a little gloating; it is so good to have been so right about this.
video platform video management video solutions video player

Enjoy this video from two Californians baffled and bemused by The Wonderful Wink Kiosk!

What's next? Well, it's not good, unfortunately. Because Senator John Pippy is apparently losing the guts to push for privatization. He's wimping out and talking about settling for some of the alternatives the PLCB is suggesting. I've got a better idea, Senator Pippy; how about you listen to the citizens of Pennsylvania, who continue to support privatization at a ratio of 2:1 or better? How about you consider that instead of the pleas of a bunch of entrenched bureaucrats who don't give a damn about anything but their jobs, their budgets, their secure power? Why keep this fossil, reeking of 70+ years of patronage and patronization? Cui bono, Senator?

Debating PJ Stapleton on Privatization

2011-03-28T15:22:00.000-04:00

If you didn't catch me on WHYY's Radio Times show this morning, well, I think it went pretty well. They did a show on the PLCB's desperate attempt to stave off privatization -- and despite what PJ Stapleton said this morning about they're just an agency, not trying to shape the debate or anything, it's very hard not to see this burst of ideas to make the PLCB suddenly more like a private system as anything but a desperate attempt for everyone to keep their jobs...by keeping us under their thumbs.

Stapleton wants more stores open on Sundays, for longer. He wants more wine kiosks in stores. He says he is in favor of home delivery of wine (watch carefully, though: that one promises more than he can deliver). He wants the PLCB freed from civil service requirements so he can hire wonderful people who love wine! It's this program that I think I'm going to call the FDI: the PLCB's False Dawn Initiative. After Stapleton laid it all out, they brought me on to lay it all waste.

You can listen to the show here. I came in about 15 minutes into it, a replacement for Senator Turzai, who's spearheading privatization in the Legislature, but couldn't make it today. Like I said, I thought I did well, but there were so many things I just didn't have time for! Like all this:

Lack of choice. Not just what’s on the shelf: there is no other option. I actually did get to this one, but Stapleton either just didn't get it, or was evading it. All he wanted to talk about was the selection on the shelf and the "wonderful" SLO system.
Not enough stores. There are more stores in Delaware, more stores in Chicago alone.
Lackadaisical service. Your training contract is an admission of this.
No beer. In most other states, you can buy beer, wine, and liquor in the same place.
Unfair business practices. The wine kiosks — sad as they are — are only in stores anointed by the PLCB; Jose Garces is the only restaurateur to have a mini-State Store right in his BYOB.
Unfair business practices II. The PLCB is in charge of regulating a business that is, in effect, its competition: beer retail. However, the State Stores are not subject to enforcement actions by the BLCE because they are not “licensed establishments.”

And that's just the stuff I had in my notes. My main point? Why should we give you all this stuff to act like a private business...when we could just do away with you and have a private business?

We did do a little happy talk at the end: Stapleton and I agreed that the PA Liquor Code needs overhauled. We just see different needs. He thinks it needs to put more lipstick on his pig. Me? I'm thinking about pork chops and bacon for dinner.

Anyone know where I can debate Wendell?

Wine Drinker? Take a look at these

2011-03-27T00:10:00.000-04:00

I know I haven't delivered on the reasons why wine drinkers should be in favor of privatization. I just don't know enough about it. Besides, there's that big safety valve in southeast PA; the biggest concentration of population in the state is right up against two state borders, and the liquor stores right on the other side keep folks from getting too angry about the PLCB. I really wonder if privatization wouldn't already be here if the BLCE did serious border patrols...

Anyway, here are two good recent pieces about how the PLCB affects wine drinkers. The first, by Dave Falchek at the Scranton Times-Tribune, is about how the PLCB warps even the forces for freedom in the wine world: Free The Grapes won't fight for freedom in PA. The second, by freelance wine writer Mark Squires, is just a flat-out screed about why the PLCB is obsolete, why it's bad for wine and wine drinkers, and why it simply has to go.

Read up! And catch me this Monday on the 10 AM show of WHYY's Radio Times (91 FM in Philly, or listen online at www.whyy.org); I'll be providing counterpoint to PLCB chairman PJ Stapleton's alternatives to privatization. Should be fun...

PLCB's "Secret Plan" front-page news? Really?

2011-03-23T14:28:00.002-04:00

Lead story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:LCB offers modernizing ideas to counter privatizing.

The "secret plan" that the Commonwealth Foundation leaked last month came out in the open yesterday -- minus the blatant 'future profits' bond issue scheme -- and for some reason, the Inky decided that this was the most important story of the day. Odd choice, made even odder when the reporter -- Angela Couloumbis -- apparently seemed to think that the PLCB's ideas for transforming the agency through a series of legislative changes were great stuff. There wasn't a negative word in the whole story, and Chairman Jake Corman's beautiful wind-up question was lost:

“I hear you saying that you want to be more like a private business. That begs the question of why not just privatize like 31 other states,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre, told agency officials as they wrapped up their appearance.

Couloumbis paraphrased that as

And while Sen. Jake Corman (R., Centre), who chairs the committee, wondered whether Pennsylvania should fall in line with 31 other states and privatize wine and liquor sales, he acknowledged: "I don't have people knocking down my door for privatization."

Well, honestly, no one's going to knock down any doors for privatization. This issue is most important to licensees; most of whom I've talked to would purely love to have private stores that would deliver to their bars and restaurants, and actually know something about wines, spirits, and business, and they're not going to chance rubbing the PLCB the wrong way; not happening. To us, well, I'd like to see privatization, but I'm not going to Harrisburg to demand it. (Write? You bet. Call? Sure, if it will help! And you should too!)

But more importantly, when a legislator says "That begs the question," it's more substantive than...wondering. "That begs the question" is the legislative, legal equivalent of "Well, duh." Corman's response is just like my response to the PLCB's wowser statements about how convenient the wine kiosks are: Really? Convenient? Compared to picking a bottle off the shelf? Get serious.

Compare this story to this one in the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader. "Again and again, legislators grilled liquor board members on how the agency operates, on their efforts to make the LCB more consumer friendly and whether a privatized system would result in increased access to alcohol by minors." (Both stories missed this one, which I got at Statehouse News.com: "State Sen. Lloyd Smucker, R-Lancaster, said many of the PLCB’s requests would double as arguments in favor of privatization.“Those decisions are perhaps best left for business. It can be more nimble with decisions to be made in reaction to market conditions,” said Smucker.)

Meanwhile, Couloumbis just repeats everything PJ Stapleton suggested -- longer Sunday hours at more stores, exemption from civil service rules, change the mark-up, and direct shipment of wine (and good though that would be...what the hell's it got to do with the PLCB's so-called business model?) -- while adding slurp-slurp-"I love the union!" quotes like this:

Sen. Jim Ferlo (D., Allegheny) called the agency "a great public asset" and said privatizing would be financially "foolhardy." This year, the agency is kicking $105 million just in profits into the state treasury, he and others noted.

There have been pro-PLCB editorials in Pennsylvania newspapers over the past 6 months, I'll admit that. But has anyone else noticed that every single one of them was written either by a current or retired State Store employee, a union official (I'm looking at you, Wendell W. Young IV), or a Democrat (and therefore presumably pro-organized labor) legislator? I haven't seen a single one written by anyone else.

This story misses the point. Stapleton's suggestions are desperate attempts to pass the blame to the Legislature and hammer down all the nails that are sticking up: too few stores (longer Sunday hours, more open on Sunday); crappy wine selection (you can get it yourself, we don't care!), prices too high (it is not cheaper in New Jersey; we changed the mark-up and lowered the price! (for a year...till you forget all about privatization...)), and unhelpful, untrained clerks (deep-six the civil service rules so we can hire wine-savvy people...for a year...till you forget all about privatization).

People! We've seen this before! When Newman took over as chairman, people hated the state stores. He made some small changes, gave us some deals on some good wines, and we forgot about privatization... And what happened? Same Shit, Different Governor: Rendell created a $150K job out of nowhere to run the liquor stores (apparently because PJ Stapleton was tired of being asked questions about wine) and gave it to an out-of-work legislator...and the system immediately began sliding back into the craphole Newman had started to winch it out of.

But the truth is, Stapleton's right about one thing. The real problem is The Almighty Liquor Code. It stipulates this moronic system, and if Stapleton wants to keep his plum job (why not? It's found money), and save all the union jobs, changing the code is the way to go. My question: is it simpler to change it Stapleton's way...or to cut the State Store System out entirely. Chop-chop!

Or another thought: How about we leave the State Store System in place, as is...and simply add an equal number of private liquor store licenses, and a number of private wholesalers. The State Stores can't buy booze from the private wholesalers; the private stores can't buy booze from the state. Bars and restaurants can buy from whoever they want. It's cheaper and more certain than doing endless studies; it's empirical. We just let it run in parallel for five years.

Does anyone doubt the outcome?

Privatization as the 800 pound gorilla

2011-03-22T16:17:00.000-04:00

The Morning Call's John Micek posted in his Capitol Ideas blog today about the PLCB's annual budget presentation to the Legislature, and noted that "...more than one lawmaker on the panel said they didn’t want to dwell on the potential privatization of the 70-year-old agency. But here’s the thing about 800-pound gorillas: They’re awfully hard to ignore."

Seems that the legislators said they didn't want to dwell on it, and then did just that, including this beautiful sentiment:

“I hear you saying that you want to be more like a private business. That begs the question of why not just privatize like 31 other states,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre, told agency officials as they wrapped up their appearance.

Kinda reminds you of the PLCB's argument that their wine kiosks are soooo convenient...until you compare them to just picking a bottle off the shelf at the grocery store and putting in in the cart with your pork chops and eggplant.

Then came the "we'd be great if you'd just give us the freedom to really swing" plea from PJ Stapleton:

The board’s chairman, Patrick J. Stapleton, told lawmakers that the agency is seeking legislative remedies that would give it greater flexibility on pricing and hiring practices.
Right now, the agency is constrained in the discounts it can offer on certain products and civil service rules have hamstrung its ability to “put the right person in the right job,” Stapleton told legislators. [Of course, those civil service rules are mostly in place to prevent rampant patronage; why's the PLCB so hot to circumvent them?]
“We’ve endeavored to create a world-class business operation,” he said. “Unfortunately, we’re limited in certain respects by [state law].”

Call me crazy, but I have a strong feeling that it would be much easier to simply do away with The State Store System than to tweak hell out of The Almighty Liquor Code to allow "a world-class business operation." But if you don't believe me, here's the PLCB's 'secret plan' to fix things so we'll never ever see privatization rear its ugly head again. Please note the bond issue, which would borrow against the next 20 years of PLCB "profits" to blow a chunk of bucks into the state's budget now...effectively guaranteeing that no legislator would bring up privatization for 20 years, because then they'd have to pay off the bond: brilliant!

Why is the State Store System so resilient, why does it still hang on?

The unionized staff comes out en masse against privatization, always has (and brags about it), and is joined by their union brothers and sisters. They're just getting warmed up this time around.
The personally offensive state monopoly (you're not allowed to buy booze anywhere else and bring it into PA) is a lot easier to maintain with a state system.
It brings in a buncha bucks, because the state's Leaning Tower of Booze Taxes is so much more oppressive than in other states (tip of the hat to PLCB Users Group creator Nathan Lutchansky for pointing that out (not, of course, in the form of a "diatribe," like I do here) and actually doing a better job than I did: turns out I missed some charges), and the PLCB and the union have done a fantastic job in convincing you that they bring in all that money, when it's really the state's tax laws that bring in most of it...and would continue to do so in a private system.
People (voters) still believe that it's actually effective in making the state safer, despite evidence to the contrary; hell, the PLCB's own bi-annual report admits that PA is not really that different from other states in negative drinking issues.

This is our best shot in years. Don't blow it. This is not about Wisconsin, this is not union-busting, this is not about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about a patronizing system of state control, a Stalinist system of government-owned retail that never should have started, and should have died a relatively natural death decades ago. It's a zombie, and it's long past time to shoot it in the head.

What's wrong with this picture?

2011-02-25T09:18:00.001-05:00

Let's play a fun game. First, watch this video from the PA AFL-CIO about why the State Store System is a good thing. Really, watch the whole thing (especially the part where the last State Store worker left standing...makes an odd noise).

Now, how many misleading or flat-out ridiculous statements can YOU find? I'll start you out with an easy one...

1. If the state stores are privatized, PA will lose $500 million in revenue. No, about $400 million of that is taxes that will still come in through a privatized system, just like we still collect sales tax from, say, drugstores.

It's your turn...what else can YOU find?

Why the secrecy?

2011-02-21T12:58:00.000-05:00

There's a...'discussion' taking place on the pro-privatization Facebook page in the past couple days about taxes, markups, and the "bottle fee," and one thing that's come out of it is the lack of a straightforward exposition on just how much The State Store System jacks up the price of booze, and how. Which led me to this:

If the State Stores are a PUBLIC business, the markup, bottle fee, and all taxes should be posted in every store as a public SERVICE.

How's that strike you? Sound reasonable?They keep telling us that the State Stores are an "asset" that belongs to us...how come we know so little about how our business is run? How about a little sunshine, Joe, PJ, et al?

Why can't I get Pikesville Rye?

2011-02-15T14:13:00.001-05:00

I break the law on occasion. I like Pikesville Rye whiskey, and in the summer, I drink it with lots of ice, ginger ale, and a big squeeze of lemon. It's refreshing and tasty. But...Pennsylvania doesn't sell it, doesn't even offer it on special order. So I hang my head, and duck across the border to Maryland and head into almost any liquor store and pick some up. It's common. I've bought it in drug stores (oh, God, the freedom...). And you know, look: if PA wants the tax, give me a way to pay it, and I will. The stuff is so darned cheap, I wouldn't mind, not really.

So I was pretty psyched when I was in Philly last week and saw Pikesville on the backbar of two bars within a block of each other! Cool, it's finally been 'listed' and I can get some legally. Only...when I got back home and checked their product search page...I still can't. Apparently Pikesville -- cheap, common as dirt Pikesville Rye -- is only available to licensees. You and me? We can't even order it. Because someone in Harrisburg apparently decided that we just didn't need to buy that whiskey. (Okay, maybe not -- see the comments -- but the effect is apparently the same.)

I know this is a little thing, but it's so indicative of one of the major problems with the whole system: a complete lack of options. I'd love to go down the road and try another store, but that's either pointless, or if 'down the road' is across the state line, it's illegal.

Privatization can't come soon enough.

A response from the opposition

2011-02-15T01:58:00.001-05:00

As noted earlier, I received some lengthy comments about Rep. Turzai's plan that, although presented as "neither for or against," seem pretty clearly posed to cast a bad light on privatization. No matter: I have always posted comments that are in opposition...but these were just too long, so I asked if it would be all right to copy them into a full post. Permission came (late last week, but hey, it was the weekend, and today was my birthday; I had other things that were more fun to do), so here it is, unedited and -- for now -- without comment, except to point out that Rep. Turzai's bill is only a proposal, and not the only way privatization can happen (so a problem with Turzai's bill is not necessarily a problem with privatization)...and that I apologize that this is so long. It is -- of course! -- "Anonymous." Here we go...

I have dissected HB 2350, Turzai's proposal of privatization. I have a few points I do want to bring to everyone's attention. I am disclosing that I am neither for or against any of these, but wanted to make light of "additional" changes that will be happening. The original bill will be in standard format, the changes will be capitalized unless otherwise indicated.

Point 1:

“Section 211. Enforcement. There is created within the Pennsylvania State Police a Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement. The Enforcement Bureau AND MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS shall be responsible for enforcing this act and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Officers and investigators assigned to the bureau OR A MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT shall have the power and their duty shall be... to investigate.”

This includes both already established licensees such as restaurants, and also new Privatized Liquor Stores. Currently the way the situation works is that a municipality police force can respond to a call at the bar, give them civil citations, and are then reviewed by the Liquor Board to determine if the offenses were localized, or if they violated the liquor code. If any violations of the liquor code are found, the BLCE will conduct an investigation to make a citation which is held pending against a license when renewal time comes around. This new passage gives authority to the municipalities to determine if the liquor code has been violated. Currently, the liquor board can only object to the Renewal of a license based upon investigations by BLCE (with respect to murder/drug), with reference to local citations. The process would not change, but the Board may not be able to justify the refusal of a renewal with the chance that the evidence could be tainted or incorrectly collected if training is not done well. This could mean a costly price for training for the municipality officers (which may come from local funding), as well as oversight of these municipalities. The cost and or ramifications of this should be factored into consideration. We saw this in Philadelphia when the Philadelphia police did not register the complaints of a murder by a licensee, and with no adjudicated evidence, the board was legally unable to refuse the renewal. Now these very same officers will be in charge of determining whether or not a citation justifies an abuse of the liquor code.

Point 2: (All new addition)

“Section 305-A: Discontinuance of wholesale operations by the board and initial franchises. (b)(1)(4)(i-iii) No Applicant may hold more than 5% of franchises within the Commonwealth, and no more than 10% of the Franchises in any one county which has ten or more franchises, and no more than 1 franchise in any once county which has fewer than 10 franchises.”

A point to consider with this is that the "Purchasing Power" the state currently has will be gone. The state will be moving from one (albeit controversial) wholesaler to 100 (305-A(b)-Board shall establish 100 Franchises...granting authority to deliver liquor. I have no stats to support whether or not this will affect the pricing, as we may go from 1 bulk purchaser to 100. There is also a limit to the number of wholesalers within a county, in that there would not be one wholesaler who would be able to operate in more than 5 counties (or 5 in one county) (Pennsylvania has 67).

Point 3: (All New addition)

“Section 310-A Physical Limitations a(1) The premises of each wine and spirits store shall... (allow) the sale of liquor and permitted merchandise.”
In many other states, liquor stores also sell cigarettes, memorabilia, and many other items to supplement their earnings. Such items as wine screws and glasses would be permitted, but other items such as cigarettes/t-shirts, etc would not be permitted. Any struggling store would not be permitted to sell anything other than alcohol and alcohol related (necessary) items. Additionally, no more than 30% of sales can come from non-alcoholic beverages.

Point 4

“Section 313-A (All New Addition)(a) Sale of State Store Inventory. An awarded franchise and license shall grant the successful bidder the opportunity to bid upon the remaining inventory.(B) Schedule of closure. The board shall develop a schedule of closure for State stores, Under no circumstances hall any state store remain open for retail sales beyond 18 months.”

This section states that 1 bidder will be awarded the ability to purchase all remaining stock. Some stores will continue to be open for up to 18 months, resulting in a period of competition between the state and private business.

Point 5

“Section 317-A (All New Addition) (d)(2) Wine and Spirits store licensees may sell wine or spirits between 8am and 11pm on any day except Sunday.(e) Age Limitations - An employee of a wine and spirits store licensee shall be 21 years of age or older.”

While most State Stores are not open on Sundays, there are a few that currently do operate (in the past few years some are authorized to be open on Sundays.) This bill will renew the old statute, and no privatized store will be permitted to be open to the public on Sundays once again. The second clause here will limit the privatized store in their hiring process. Currently through the lcb a person must be 18 years of age (similar to a waitress that serves alcohol.) By having a lower age requirement, wages can often be lower since many of the current employees are part time (intermittent) college students. Based on the new law, this "temporary" work force will not be permitted to be employed by the new stores.

Point 6

“Section 342-A (All new addition) (a) Tax on retail sales of wine and liquor. A tax of 6% is imposed on each retail sale of wine and liquor for on-premises and off-premises consumption by a licensee to an unlicensed person.”

“Section 448 (New addition) A tax of 6% is imposed on each retail sale of malt or brewed beverages for on-premises consumption.”

and

“Section 401 (all New Addition) (b)... New tax rates (to be collected by manufacturer and/or importer)
$3.50/G wines<17%
$4/g wines>17%
$4.50g sparking wine
$5/g Liquor >17%
$6.50 17%>Liquor<55%
$7g Liquor>55%”

On the first point here, currently when you go to a wine and spirits store, you pay 6% sales tax, 18% emergency flood tax, and 30% mark up. What you do not pay is 6% sales tax on prepared drinks when you go to a bar or restaurant (at least, you are not supposed to be charged.) I was unable to find in the bill whether or not the 18% tax is being repealed, so if it is, please indicate the section for me. But add up the total costs here. 6% sales tax/18% flood tax + private store mark up. Then add the second tax of 6% for any on-premise sale and citizens may end up paying more (and in restaurant/bar) twice for the same alcohol. Furthermore, according to section 448, malt beverages for on-premise consumption would also be subjected to a 6% sales tax.

Previously to the best of my knowledge, licensees (restaurants) would pay the sales tax on the liquor from the state store or distributor, but were not permitted to charge sales tax on the poured drink. So in essence, if the 18% flood tax is not lifted, then by privatization (according to this bill) we as consumer's will be paying an ADDITIONAL 6% tax on alcohol (if you drink both in restaurants and at home.)

As for section 401 with the manufacturer tax. I was unable to find the current rates, however as this is new language in the bill and I could not find prior language, I am assuming here that this is also an increase.Based off this, the only savings that Pennsylvania citizens would see would be if the Retailer was willing to have a profit margin smaller than 30% (or in the case of licensee restaurants, 24%, and with diminished buying power (again, this is arguable and I am not taking sides), we may actually see a rise in prices instead of a decrease.

Again, please correct me with the passage if this is incorrect.

Point 7

“Section 491 (added information) (e) A direct shipper may ship wine on the internet order of a resident into this Commonwealth provided that the wine is shipped to a (Pennsylvania Liquor Store) WINE AND SPIRITS STORE selected by the resident.”

While this does not address direct shipping inter-commonwealth, it does lay to rest the argument of "why can't I get wine shipped to my house." Even under privatization, you will still need to pick up your alcohol at a liquor store, sign for it, and pay all applicable taxes. There will not be direct shipping. Again, I was unable to find the language that deals with inter-commonwealth, and I am unsure if this is meant to cover both instate and out of state transactions.

Point 8: (all new addition)
“Section 495 (c.1) In addition to the requirements of subsection (b) and (c), a wine and spirits store licensee, or the servant, agent, or employee of the wine and spirits store licensee, shall use swipe identification card technology to verify the age of any person who appears to be under 30 years of age.”

Currently, I believe most if not all state stores use this practice. This will not change under privatization. This can be seen as both a prevention of under age sales, or as a hurdle to stores that may feel looking at an ID is good enough. I would imagine that BLCE and now municipalities will be monitoring these systems and signatures more closely.
This will also mean that by law these stores will be required to card everyone who appears to be under 30, and scan their ID, even if they are a daily patron.

I just wanted to bring these few things up to those that read your blog, and to yourself. While you may still hold the premise that privatization is good for the act of privatization itself, it may not pan out the way most people expect. Any savings to the consumer may be a wash with the added sales taxes and manufacturing taxes, inability to hire "temporary" workforce college kids, and Sunday sales (where currently available) will be a thing of the past.

Again, if you find anything incorrect with my reporting please let me know. I will not take offense to corrections if you can find the information.

And that's that. As I said: unedited, and again, this refers to Rep. Turzai's proposal for privatization, which has not yet been through the sausage-grinder. Feel free to comment, or not.

Dopey Case Law Still Gets Enforced...Reluctantly

2011-02-14T12:31:00.001-05:00

A friend of the blog sent this back in September -- I was really busy and didn't read it at the time -- and I just stumbled across it in my Inbox, unread. It's an e-mail he got from a Philly-area distributor (that's a beer store for you out-of-staters) about how they got a visit from the LCB (or more probably the BLCE, but I'm not sure) about...selling mixed cases. That's right: not only is it illegal to sell less than a case at a distributor's, they are forbidden by law to sell anything but whole, unmixed, unopened cases. Even if that's what the customers all want. Don't ask me why, I've no idea.

So when these guys got ratted out, and busted...well, they had a crazy response to this crazy law. Read on...

Dear Fellow beerlovers,

In case you haven't heard...we've had a really interesting week! But not in a good way. Last week an LCB officer came into our store. My editorial is below.

BUSTED!!!!A Letter to our loyal customers:
Our competition is so scared of us, that this establishment (not a beer distributor) located in close proximity to our humble store, lodged a complaint with the Liquor Control Board of Pennsylvania, and this "establishment" complained that we mix our own variety pack cases, which is strictly prohibited by the LCBs now arcane laws that fail to keep up with consumers tastes and the times.

The agent from the LCB was extremely courteous, and stated that he really didn't want to bust us or he wouldn't even have come in to check, if weren't for an "establishment" that registered the complaint against us.

[Name of distributor here] believes this is a giant step back for not just us, but the whole industry and it's consumers. We know that we were not the only store engaging in this behavior. The more distributors that do this, the more it becomes accepted and eventually would be written into law. Now, the LCB will undoubtedly go on the offensive and start checking other places for this "illegal" behavior.
The consumer is truly the loser today.

All we can really do now is go underground, like in the Prohibition days, so if you'd like to get one of our latest Oktober/Pumpkin Variety Packs, please print this email and just tell me your name and state that you are not from the LCB. Yes, it's stupid, but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Great beer is a right, not a privilege and we want to be the ones to spread the good word (and taste)!

Of course, I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to break the law, but...it is a rather direct solution!

State Store Stings: a confirmation

2011-02-11T14:18:00.000-05:00

As a follow-up to my previous post on whether or not the BLCE ever does "stings" using underage purchasers in the State Stores...I have a partial answer. I wrote to the BLCE and the PLCB about the issue, and just heard back from Stacey Witalec, Director of External Affairs at the PLCB (who has, by the way, been extremely helpful and pleasant over the past month or so; quite welcome). Here's what she had to say.

I checked in with BLCE on this for you and because our stores are not licensed establishments, BLCE does not perform compliance checks in them.

She's going to follow up and check on how many times there have been "issues" at the stores on this and get back to me, but for now...looks like a definitive answer: no, the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement does not treat the State Stores like they do private licensed establishments. Which would seem to take a LOT of the wind out of the "we don't serve underage; privatization would mean chaos" anti-privatization argument.

"PR": please call me

2011-02-10T22:43:00.000-05:00

I just got a lengthy series of four comments on Rep. Turzai's proposed privatization bill from someone signing themselves "PR." I didn't post them: not because I disagree, or because I'm censoring them, or anything like that. I didn't post them because they're just way too long for the comments field.

So I'm asking PR: if you read this, could you leave a comment on whether it would be okay with you if I copied those comments -- in their entirety -- out of the moderation notification I got -- and put them up as a regular post on the blog? You raise some interesting points; it's just that they'll look like hell and be hard to read as comments. Let me know.

A response to one anti-privatization talking point...

2011-02-08T09:44:00.002-05:00

John Rzodkiewicz, who is apparently a State Store employee (at least, that's what he claims on his Facebook profile, and I have no reason to doubt him), has made some well-spoken counters on my pro-privatization Facebook page. I've developed a respect for the man. Recently he posted a link to a piece about the failure of privatization in Washington State (ahem...written by the Washington wine and spirits wholesalers association...), and followed it up with this comment:

Pro- privatization was ahead 85% to15% early on before debate.After some sober analysis the people saw no state has made more money from liquor after privatization, and just said no to selling off their public asset.

I felt compelled to respond, and wanted to share that response here.

John, the problem is, it's NOT a "public asset." It's an out of date, paternalistic anomaly, it is an insult to the character of the citizens of the Commonwealth to think we need to be "controlled," and under Joe Conti it has become an arrogant embarrassment.

"Wine kiosks"?! Questionable "courtesy contracts" awarded to family members of PLCB managers? The public humiliation of the BLCE because of incredibly shoddy record-keeping on beer registration? This is a system that NEEDS privatization to take it out of the hands of the people running it.

Honestly? For me, and for many others, it's not about the money. It's about the ridiculous monopoly. If I'm 15 minutes from my home in New Jersey for work, I'm not allowed to pick up a bottle of wine on my way home? That's not economic, that's unAmerican. And it's the only way the PLCB makes their "profit" -- a piddling 20-25% of the total they continue to claim they send to the General Fund -- by having a police-enforced monopoly that requires PA citizens to buy at the State Stores.

This isn't about the money, the "public asset," for the most vocal opponents of privatization: the UFCW.* It's about their jobs, that's all. Understandable, but this is not a public jobs program; or at least, it shouldn't be. It's a fossil. They can get jobs in the new private stores.

Give US a referendum, John. We'll deliver privatization.

*Again, and again, and again: I am not anti-union. I am strongly in favor of privatization of the Pennsylvania State Stores; that's all. I do realize that would mean the loss of union jobs...but new jobs would be created immediately.

It Begins!

2011-02-08T09:20:00.000-05:00

Hearings on State Store privatization in the PA Senate Law and Justice Committee begin on the afternoon of February 14 -- my birthday; guys, you shouldn't have! It's just what I wanted!

State Store Stings?

2011-02-05T11:02:00.000-05:00

I have a Facebook page about this subject, Abolish the PLCB -- Rewrite the Code! (feel free to join, if you haven't already), and there are some serious PLCB apologists who joined and post counters to privatization. I suspect they're PLCB employees (present or retired) or fellow union members, but I have no proof...and my suspicions are mostly based on my incredulity that anyone else would support the PLCB, I'll admit that.

Anyway, one of them was posting a number of news reports (from other states) about sting operations that had resulted in arrests of liquor store staff or owners making sales to minors. This would always be accompanied by crowing about how privatization would bring more sales to minors, and that the PLCB clerks never ever sell to minors. Well, that's probably not actually true, because I've noticed that PLCB supporters have just started saying that there were only two sales to minors in the past 7 years, but that's still pretty impressive.

Only...wait a minute. Just how cozy is the relationship between PLCB store clerks and Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement agents? So I started responding to all his posts: "Hey, does the BLCE ever conduct stings on State Stores? Just asking!" Never got a response.

To tell the truth...I don't know. Do they? Because if they don't...it's a meaningless statistic. I'd say I'd like to see it happen, but honestly? I wouldn't, because the way the regs are set up, any PLCB clerk who sells to an underage purchaser loses their job and their pension. I wouldn't want to see that just to prove a point. But...in the absence of such stings, this is comparing apples and oranges. Stick a pin in this balloon.

Amazing: PLCB apologist

2011-02-03T14:12:00.000-05:00

Phillywinefinder.com is a well-known supporter of the PLCB's wine "program." PWF is a frequent commenter on Philly bulletin boards, where he supports the Chairman's Selections, the Premiere Collection stores, and the PLCB's website; he even has a list of "Philly Wine Rules" to lay out his manifesto (mind you, I'm assuming PWF is a "he," because that's how most wine types in the area refer to him). They are both expected -- Buy Chairman's Selection Wine, Shop at Premium Collection Stores, Use the PLCB Web Site...I mean, duh -- and jaw-dropping: Pay Attention to Temperature and Light in Storage and Serving (translation: the PLCB is dumb enough to keep wine in hot storage and sunlight), Don't Expect the State Store Employees to be Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson (no problem, I don't), and then this bombshell: Cultivate Friends and Family in Other States, which is to say, drink good wines when you're in New Jersey and, what the hell, break the law and bring them home to Pennsylvania. I do it, sure, but I don't really expect to hear that kind of advice from someone who says

We dare you to follow these tips and strategies and see if you don't stop shaking your fists with rage at the PLCB and instead become a convert and frequent shopper of the Wine and Spirits Stores of PA!

Okay, I will, since I don't apparently have to actually buy things there to be a 'convert!' Honestly, these are the kinds of contortions you have to go through to find something good to say about the PLCB's State Store System. It's like finding something good to say about the case law: um...less light damage?

Odd strategies aside, that's not what I wanted to talk about today. No, instead it's about the opening paragraph on that Philly Wine Rules page.

There's one thing that almost all booze swilling Philadelphians (because if you hate the PLCB, you must be a booze swiller) seem to agree on: they all hate the archaic liquor laws and monopolistic system of alcohol distribution administered by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB). (Yup. He's got that part right.) Articles, editorials, blogs (Ah. That one would be me), forum posts, and more have nothing but curses and condemnation for the vile agency and its hated rules and retail monopoly. (Actually, that's not true. I have Reasons, and I have said good things about the PLCB. I like the online product catalog, for instance.) Hatred runs so deep that even when the agency tries to do something right (like remodeling the stores or improving customer service) they get slammed (I said nothing about remodeling the stores, and I said the way they went about improving customer service was ethically questionable; as it turned out, the State Auditor General agreed with me). Anyone who tries to defend the PLCB gets called a shill, because, so the thinking goes, no rational person could defend such a dreadfully awful regime without having some kind of vested interest at stake. (Given that most people who do defend the PLCB are either current or retired members of the system, or Wendell W. Young IV, the president of the union that represents the State Store System clerks...I'd say they mostly are shills.)

Well. Someone has a problem. First, I do not think PWF is a shill. He has said on many occasions that he is not related to the PLCB in any way, and I choose to believe him. I'm actually somewhat refreshed to see someone arguing for the PLCB that isn't a shill. That said, PWF's arguments almost all revolve around the Chairman's Selection program and the 'find anything anywhere in the state' website...and when pressed, he simply replies that people can always go across the border.

I can't discuss the Chairman's Selection program; I'll admit that I don't know enough about wine. I've been told by wine lovers that it's gone downhill since Jonathan Newman left, and that it is a dumping ground for old wines and wines that didn't sell elsewhere. I do not know if that is true. I do buy some CS wines myself, and have not generally been disappointed.

(I also buy some of the lowball wines the PLCB has, like the Rex Goliath Cab...then when I tried to buy it at my local store -- good old 0909 -- I couldn't find it, and the clerk I asked about it just shrugged, said, 'I guess we don't have any,' and started talking to another customer without offering to check backstock or telling me there was none. Hard to believe, right? Well...I DID find four bottles in Verona, PA, and the clerk there was great. On the register; I found it myself.)

But the website? Please. It's only possible because it's a statewide monopoly. It's like the case law "protecting" beer; if that's the best you can offer me, I'll take my chances with all the other benefits of privatization!

And running across the border? Break the monopoly, and the State Store System will be a money loser, I guarantee. Because more stores open on the border all the time -- a huge Roger Wilco just opened at the far side of the Burlington Bristol bridge -- and if people aren't worried about getting caught, they'll stream over there. The fact is, it's against the law. You can't argue in favor of a legal monopoly by saying you just skirt it whenever it becomes inconvenient; what about the poor bastards in Scranton, or State College?

The system is archaic and monopolistic. That's why we want to do away with it. And if I'm just cursing and condemning...what's this, PWF's latest tweet?

"cheap way to bash #PLCB: pick obscure #wine and whine that PLCB doesn't have it when in fact very few states offer it anyway."

A cheap shot, but proof he's rattled. Anyway, fella...I don't need to do that. The PLCB's all target, all the time! The wine kiosks: HA! Even when they work, they're ridiculous. The courtesy contract: ethically challenged and exposed the basic problems with the state-owned retail system. The bottle charge increase: it's on! It's off! It's on! The beer registration raids: enforcement left looking like idiots because the PLCB's registration list was stuffed full of errors. Jonathan Newman, the best thing that happened to the PLCB in years: driven off by the political hackery that has always dominated the PLCB. Joe "CEO" Conti: a patronage plum offered to a politician who wasn't savvy enough to dodge the right way on the pay increase. And on, and on, and on.

Are there good wines for sale at the State Store System? Of course there are; there are so many wines it would be hard to miss. Would a private system offer more choice? Absolutely, because it would offer me the choice to go somewhere else.

Senator Pippy: entire liquor code "in play"

2011-02-01T09:11:00.000-05:00

Just a quick note: check out this story quoting Sen. John Pippy, chair of the Senate liquor control committee. (Thanks to Purnell Jones for the link.) Here's the money shot:

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai said he does not want to see his bill to privatize liquor sales potentially bogged down by becoming an omnibus liquor reform measure. While he expects to honor Turzai’s desire to deal with privatization in a separate bill, Republican John Pippy, chairman of the Senate committee that vets liquor legislation, said other issues related to updating Pennsylvania liquor laws will be on the table, albeit on a different track. “All those issues are going to be in play anyways,” Pippy said. “As the chairman of the [Senate] Law and Justice Committee I’ve said we are going to look at everything. I think we need to modernize Pennsylvania liquor law.”

That's right, folks. As the late Senator Donatucci told me after the beer registration raid hearings last spring, we're moving into an activist phase concerning liquor legislation in PA. Things are going to happen. So we gotta push. I've written to my legislators and Governor Corbett (and I'll be talking to my state rep later this week about privatization, at his invitation): get on the line and do likewise!

Privatization chances handicapped by experts

2011-01-25T11:55:00.000-05:00

See that quote over to the right, from former PLCB chairman (1995-2002) John Jones? He's talking about Tom Ridge's attempt to privatize the PLCB in 1997, and why it didn't work: lack of support in the legislature and the public. Read it again:

"...there was [in 1997] no overarching passion within the General Assembly, or in the public at large, for privatization. Unless and until there is a general hue and cry, it is very unlikely there will be a privatization initiative that succeeds."

Jones and other former PLCB members are quoted at length in today's Scranton Times-Tribune, giving their impressions on the chances of privatization succeeding this time around. I found these quotes by Jones's predecessor, James A. Goodman, who served from 1987 to May 1995, to speak directly to Jones's previous statement.

"Since the system has been in existence, there have been bills in the Legislature" to privatize state-run liquor stores, Mr. Goodman told Times-Shamrock Newspapers on Monday. "But I would consider this to be the most serious threat for it to happen. You have the governor and you have the majority leader (state House Republican Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-28, Pittsburgh) as the prime sponsor of the bill. That's a lot of juice. And you have newspapers ... editorializing in favor of it all over the state."

Don't think that means Goodman is in favor of privatization. He said he opposes it, apparently (the paper didn't quote him directly) because the system funds alcohol education and enforcement efforts. Well...given the problems we've had with enforcement efforts, maybe they could use some shaking up.

Here's something I just don't get. One of the arguments against privatization is brought up by John Reiley, who was the PLCB secretary for 29 years (WTF? Really?!): "One driving force behind the effort is "big business trying to latch onto those profits" that the state now sees through its monopoly on liquor sales, Mr. Reiley said." Well...yeah! That's what retail business does. It's called capitalism, and the profit motive, and that's the reigning model in the United States, has been since 1776. Supporting the PLCB against privatization is anti-business, plain and simple...which smacks of anti-Americanism.

One of the biggest balls of bull that's being batted around (on both sides of the debate) is the number on what the State might net by auctioning off liquor store and wholesale licenses (and real estate, and stock, and fixtures, and all that jazz). It's all either pie in the sky numbers from those in favor, or lowballs from those opposed (mostly the union, but also religious groups and anti-booze groups, who are really drinking the "control" Kool-Aid). We need real numbers; and the paper also has a report on a possiblity that the House will contract for an independent study on that. Good. We need real numbers.

Because this is important. Turzai is pushing to have a bill through the legislature by Memorial Day. To move that fast, we need real information, and we need real alternatives. My major issues with Turzai's legislation? Not enough licenses (we really ought to have at least 1,200, not 750), and not enough limits on who gets them (I really like the idea of no company getting more than three, but 10% is too many; and I'd really like to keep any current or former legislators out of ownership). And maybe some other stuff. Discuss!!!

A recent State Store experience

2011-01-18T10:44:00.000-05:00

Forgot to tell you about this one. We had a nice bottle of wine back in the spring, an Alma Negra Bonarda Malbec, a dark Argentine red. It was so good I remembered it, and come December, when we were shopping for Christmas presents, I wanted to get a bottle for someone (and a couple for myself). I went to the State Store here in Newtown, and started looking.

No luck, so I whipped out the iPhone, and went to the PLCB's product search website to see if they even had it. They did, and when I drilled down further, I found that the local store (good old Store #0909!) had -- at that time -- 126 bottles of it. Couldn't find it in the Argentine section. So, against my better judgment, I asked a clerk. I'm looking for an Argentine Malbec called Alma Negra, I said (I'll admit my ignorance: I didn't know that Bonarda was a varietal. Malbec was all I recognized), could you help me find it? His very first words were "Oh, no, we don't have anything by that name." Very helpful!

Luckily, I still had the iPhone out, and I told him, Actually, the LCB website says you have 126 bottles of it! Maybe it's up front; it's a Chairman's Selection. And the guy says, "Oh, no, that's not a Chairman's Selection. We don't have any Argentine Malbecs as Chairman's." I was stunned, a bit, but rallied: Yes, it is, it says so right on your website. And I went towards the front of the store -- and almost tripped over the stuff. It was sitting in the middle of an aisle (among the domestics, far from the Argentina section...), four cases of it topped by an open case, with a Chairman's Selection sign on it.

Here it is, I said brightly, thanks! And he comes up, picks up the bottle, and points to the label, and says, "Oh, you see: it's a blend. It's not a Malbec." So I grinned, and said, You're right, I'm sorry. What else was I going to do? I was really, really sorry that I had to buy wine from people who clearly knew nothing about their stock -- and the guy's been working there for years -- and couldn't care less about helping a customer find a product.

See, this is why I grit my teeth when I read letters to the editor and comments on blogs where people talk about the wonderful service they get at the State Stores. Because while I'm sure there are at least some SS clerks out there who really want to help, and really know the products (there was a younger guy at #0909 who actually knew something about whiskey, although he was obnoxious about it), I have not had those kinds of experience. Cash register service? Just fine, no complaints. But advice? Guidance? Even common courtesy out in the aisles? You get better service at Home Depot.

And if this system went away, and we got private stores...I could just go somewhere else. But in PA? There's no point. And I'm literally forbidden by law to shop in New Jersey (and bring anything home, that is).

The Fight for Privatization Starts Today

2011-01-18T10:20:00.000-05:00

Well. I've been silent, and I regret it...but I've been really busy (and, I'll admit, doing more on Facebook and Twitter than here, which was probably a mistake and all my blogs have suffered for it). Still and all...

Hot damn! We appear to have hit the election jackpot, if only in terms of the abolishment of The State Store System. It's been a wild time since election day. Here's what's happened.

• Governor-elect Corbett (who is inaugurated today) confirmed that he is not only in favor of privatization, he's in favor of rapid privatization;

• Senator Dominic Pileggi and Representative Mike Turzai both confirmed that privatization was at the top of the legislative agenda;

• Turzai, who has the most comprehensive privatization legislation on the table, was elected House Majority Leader; Pileggi, who supports privatization, is Senate Majority Leader.

• Almost every newspaper editorial staff in the state has come out in favor of privatization;

• The groundhogs at the PLCB stuck their noses out into the harsh new light and decided that they didn't really need to put through that across-the-board price increase they'd told us they needed;

• And...the wine kiosks blew up, and the PLCB finally had to admit there were problems and took them offline right in the middle of the holidays, possibly the biggest impulse-buy season for wine in the whole year.

Whew. It's enough to make a man weep for joy. But you know...it wasn't complete until Wendell W. Young IV (president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776, the PLCB employees union) came out of his cave to shake his booga-booga stick and warn us of all the terrible things that will happen if we privatize.

That's how I knew this was serious. Okay, serious in a funny kind of way, because the only players in this whole spectacle that are goofier than WWY4 are the loonies at the Independent State Store Union, the union that represents the PLCB managers (is it just me, or is the idea of a union for managers just so indicative of what's wrong with this whole clusterf – er, mess?). They babble and hoot, and release their manifestos about the evils of alcohol and long hours at the State Stores (guys...if you don't like alcohol, maybe you should consider a different line of work?), and sound a lot like late-night AM radio preachers.

But WWY4 at least plays it a bit serious, trotting out scary (irrelevant and incorrect) numbers, savage (ad hominem) arguments, and managing to insult the motives of everyone in favor of privatization. You can tell it's going to be ugly – he's decided to call people who support privatization privateers, get it? Like pirates? If that's the way it's going to be, get me my letter of marque, and give me clear seaway, I'm after some prizes.

One of his biggest arguments is that the sale of the system -- which is really the sale of retail and wholesale licenses; the stores and two of the three warehouses are leased -- won't really raise $2 billion as Turzai claims. Over and over, he repeats (and so do his UFCW drones) that those licenses will cost $2.3 million if Turzai's going to get $2 billion, and that's going to shut out mom and pop stores, and big box stores will get a monopoly on liquor and wine sales in PA.

Okay...first, I don't really care about the money. It's about getting rid of a ridiculous state retail monopoly that doesn't work. It's about service -- Joe "CEO" Conti was recently quoted in the New York Times as pleased that State Store employees “aren’t incentivized to sell”, and by God, he's right -- it's about selection, it's about this is ridiculous in 2011.

Turzai agrees. “The fact is, government is not private business. It simply cannot compete with private industry by pretending it is something that it is not. When it comes to the PLCB selling wine and spirits, we all need to ask: ‘Should Pennsylvania really be in the business of selling alcoholic beverages?’ How can the government agency charged with educating the public and regulating the industry, be in charge of maximizing sales of wine and spirits in the Commonwealth?”

But look. Say those licenses go for $400,000 each; not unreasonable, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get part of a former monopoly. The 620 stores we have now are not enough; you can see that by looking at other states (that have no better or worse a record with alcohol problems than Pennsylvania). So let's say a nice round thousand stores. That's still half as many -- proportionally -- as they have in New York, and the alcohol problem stats there are about the same as in PA. So, a thousand stores at $400,000 each is $400 million, plus 100 wholesale licenses is another $100 million. $500 million. It's not $2 billion.

But instead of making them pieces of property -- like we did with tavern licenses, which is stupid -- make them non-transferable. The license is issued, and you have to pay a reasonably substantial fee every year to maintain it -- $10,000? $20,000? -- and if you sell the business...the new owner pays the state for the license. Not you. The state charges for the new license whatever the going rate was in the initial auction, plus inflation.

Don't want big box stores owning all the liquor licenses? Simple: Massachusetts says no one/no business can own more than a small number of liquor store licenses (can't remember if it's one or three off the top of my head); do that here. Why not, the 21st Amendment says we can! That keeps mom and pop in the running.

Here's one that Wendell and his minions trot out all the time, flash it by you fast so you don't think:

"If the privateers do their homework, they'll see that selling the Wine and Spirits stores can't replace the nearly $500 million a year they generate for Pennsylvania taxpayers. And they'll see that selling the state stores would be a onetime money grab at the expense of an asset that generates reliable, growing revenues."

The Wine and Spirits stores don't generate nearly $500 million a year. They collect about $400 million in taxes; they 'generate' about $100 million in profits. The taxes -- not in exactly that form, but still about the same amount -- will be collected by private stores, and the loss we're currently experiencing in "border bleed" will likely go away, resulting in higher tax collections in-state. I mean, if Canal's opens a store in Fairless Hills, I'm not going to Jersey any more (which, by the way, means I won't be buying gas in Jersey, or lunch, or groceries while I'm at Canal's...)!

The point he brings up that's honest is about the union jobs that will be lost: over 4,000. That's what he's really concerned about, and he should be: that's what he's well-paid to do (about twice as much as Joe "CEO" Conti gets, BTW). I get that, but...those jobs should never have existed. The state should never have been in retail. A bad decision 75 years ago, and we should keep paying for it forever?

No. Cut the payroll, cut the never-ending pension benefits (how many of you have a guaranteed-benefits pension? Know any retail clerks that do?), cut that all out. Give them help finding work (and Turzai's bill does that), and if they're any good at what they do, they should be able to easily find work in a new private system -- good-paying work, with their years of experience -- or even open a store themselves. But running this big a jobs program for unnecessary work makes no sense in 2011.

Wendell smears the motives of everyone in favor of privatization: we're all in it for money. As a citizen, I take that as a deep personal insult. I want nothing more than to be treated like an adult, to have the simple freedom of being able to buy something in a store 15 miles away and bring it home without fear of arrest, to be able to shop in my home state in a way I can currently only do in another. I want to support local business, not a government fossil.

Today is inauguration day. Privatization starts today.

Corbett Officially Announces Support for Privatization of State Store System!

2010-10-20T09:45:00.003-04:00

Big news today on the PLCB front: the front-runner in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial* race, Tom Corbett, announced yesterday that he supports "privatization of the state-run liquor store system." Here's the statement, from his campaign website:

“It is no secret that Pennsylvania and the next governor of this commonwealth will be faced with massive economic challenges left behind by the current administration. As governor, I will present a plan for the privatization of the state liquor store system that helps to address the state’s need for additional funds, insures ongoing revenues and minimizes the impact on current workers,” said Corbett. “Given the current economic climate in Pennsylvania, state government can no longer be in the liquor store business. We need to move our state out of the 19^thcentury and refocus state government on its core functions and services for our residents."

Of course, presenting a plan and getting the Legislature to pass it are two different matters, but having push from the governor will help. We'll certainly do our best to fuel the debate.

What about the Democratic candidate, "Danny Boy" Onorato? He's been against privatization in the past, and when asked about Corbett's new statement, responded through a spokesman (in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: that he

"would "consider any proposal" but currently does not support the privatization of liquor stores. "The current system generates hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue to help balance the budget..." said Brian Herman. Mr. Onorato plans to make the state system more "consumer-friendly," but is looking elsewhere for savings, he said."

Actually, the current system generates under $200 million; the taxes on booze generate "hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue," and that would continue. It would almost certainly increase as we eliminated "cross-border bleed," the PLCB euphemism for "people going to NJ/MD/DE to buy booze instead of at the annoying State Store System."And I'd love to know how he "plans to make the state system more 'consumer-friendly,'" given the current level of arrogance at the agency; they told Fast Eddie to piss off, do you really think they're going to listen to some jumped-up county commissioner?

As I've said before: I wouldn't suggest that anyone vote based on this single issue. But if you're wavering on who to vote for -- and in this particular race, it's like deciding to vote for Mr. Avuncular or Rendell Lite -- here's one candidate who's taken a solid stand on an issue you probably care about.

*And isn't that a great word? Goobernatorial?

Poor bride...

2010-09-30T14:15:00.000-04:00

Here's a story of just how handy and cooperative the State Store System is. A bride spends hours planning her wedding wine list: variety, quality, reasonable price. She takes it to the PLCB store, which, the agency tells us, has a better selection than the big stores in NJ and Delaware...and yet, they don't have the wines, and most of them would take weeks to order. ARGH! She has to re-do the entire list, even though she could get most of the wines at her local store...in New Jersey.

Real world story, from someone with no axe to grind. Poor Pennsylvania. Poor us.

What the Winos are thinking

2010-09-22T16:12:00.000-04:00

I have to assume this thread on PhiladelphiaSpeaks.com reflects what the wine-lovers are thinking. They don't like the PLCB, and who can blame them?

By the way, Keith Wallace is right: the two candidates for PA governor have different stands on the PLCB. Tom Corbett is not against reform of the PLCB and The State Store System; Dan "I Balanced Pittsburgh's Budget On The Backs of Drinkers" Onorato is dead-set against it. I do not encourage anyone to be a single-issue voter, least of all on this one; but if you need to make up your mind, factor it in, eh?

Apologies: I posted this over at the Session Beer Project blog first by mistake!

Nice summation

2010-09-22T15:30:00.000-04:00

Take a look at this "Liquor Privatization Roundup" from John Geeting at his Lehigh Valley Independent blog. The payoff is key: "Restricting the PLCB's mission solely to public health regulation is the best option for the largest number of consumers, while the current system is only good for a handful of public liquor store employees and rent-seeking liquor license holders."

Other people are thinking and writing about this a lot more. Keep it going. I'll try to do more...to keep it going.

Now! At the PLCB! Every Bottle is On Sale! FOR MORE!

2010-09-02T16:46:00.000-04:00

That's right, Pennsylvanians: not only do you have to buy your booze here in Pennsylvania at the State Store System (under penalty of law), you're now going to have to pay more for it, across the board. As of January 4, every bottle -- wine, liquor, liqueur, wine cooler, and whatever Rock & Rye is -- will be going up in price by 50¢ to $2 (depending on size). What's the reason? Is it a new database for beer registration? More courtesy training? RFID tags so they can track down and kill underage drinkers? (Just kidding; they wouldn't really kill them.)

It's not a tax. (Really, Chairman PJ Stapleton said so, so, well, there you are.) No...it's handling fees. The PLCB tells us that this is the first time in 17 years they've raised the price because of this. My response: how would we know? How would we know? The PLCB takes all its costs out of the price of booze (and licensing and fines and so on), but although the annual report says how much gets spent, it doesn't really give details. So how do we know whether they've added in these costs before or not?

And honestly, why the hell wouldn't they? Joe "CEO" Conti keeps saying they're running it like a business; what business doesn't adjust prices for costs? And now he's saying they're going to adjust for costs every year, "We're going to look at these every July and hopefully though it will be a penny or two next July instead of the increase that we had to do this year to make up for 17 years,"he said to KDKA reporter Marty Griffin. And what business ups their prices by a penny a year? Come on, "CEO" Joe!

It's not just you that's going to pay, either: restaurants and bars will pay more too, and by the time it gets through to you, you're looking at $3-5 more for a bottle of wine, right? For handling. Am I alone in thinking that this would be a good time to tell them to get their damned hands off the booze?

Sure, private liquor stores raise their prices. But you know...when they do, you have a choice. You can shop around. You aren't required to shop in one store by law, and if you don't shop there, the cops will take away your booze and fine you. Unless you live in Pennsylvania.

Had enough yet? And if you haven't...why the hell not?

Le Kiosque Nouveau est arrive!

2010-06-24T09:34:00.008-04:00

Oh, at last, at last! The PLCB's long-threatened wine kiosks have arrived!

And the Harrisburg Patriot-News very obligingly sent reporter Liam Migdail-Smith to try out one of the two prototypes. He chose the one at the Wegmans on Carlisle Pike in Silver Spring Township, and filed this report. The paper's Joe Hermitt also video'd the experience, which you can watch above.

It's amazing, really. These awesome new wine kiosks let you buy one of FIFTY THREE different wines (even more than the fifty originally promised!) just by...

Making a selection by touchscreen (better than talking to a State Store System clerk, right?)
Scanning your driver's license (got any outstanding warrants? Just kidding!)
Swiping your credit card ("swiping" is just a technical term)
Signing a touchpad (dontcha just love those electronic pens?)
Activating the breathalyzer by touchscreen (don't get flustered when you forget this step, like the reporter did)
Blowing into the breathalyzer to prove your BAC is below 0.02 (maybe you'll get instructions too; and yes, that is much lower than Pennsylvania's legal limit; the PLCB's just being careful about your safety (and their liability))
Waiting for the breathalyzer results (don't look nervous, you're fine! ...although the PLCB does admit "It is possible the machine may detect alcohol when a consumer hasn't been drinking, but the PLCB will err on the side of caution." No worries, though, she'll be right...s'long as you're buying Yellowtail, right, mate?)
Standing still in front of a video camera so a PLCB employee at a remote site can confirm you are the person on the license (they probably hired really attentive folks for this, so don't think about how mortifying a 'false positive' would be at this point; they will probably shred your license, though...)
Moving to the correct door (apparently identified by flashing lights; don't worry about the wrong one lighting up, because no one else can use the damned thing until you're done already, buddy!)
And about two minutes after you started (assuming nothing in this chain of events goes wrong), you can pick up your bottle of wine!

That is SO COOL! What will they think of next?! They're probably working on sending wine to your house by pneumatic tubes or little trolleys on overhead wires or something!

People in other states are making fun of us as you read this. Hell, people in this state are making fun of us as I write this! Want to read something funny? Check out the official PLCB press release on these technological marvels. My favorite part? "The entire process will take less than 20 seconds." A close second: "The kiosks are a way to give our customers an added level of convenience in today's busy society." HA!

Ask yourself some questions.

First, and most important, what is so important about "control" that makes this better in any way than what they do in a majority of states: buy bottles of wine right off the grocery store shelves?

Second, think about your elderly parent trying to buy a bottle of wine from this thing. Now...think about them trying to buy one while you're waiting in line behind them, just wanting to get a bottle and go home, because there's only going to be one per store. Like that picture?

Next, think about why no one seems to mind that the major investors on this single-bid contract are major political donors?

Then think about this: the PLCB says they're not paying for the kiosks, that Simple Brands LP (no link given because they have no website...and isn't that odd for this ostensibly "hi-tech" company?) is making money in other ways: the advertising on the kiosks, for instance, and...hey, wait a minute...how do the wines that get into the kiosks as your only choices get picked? The PLCB says they're picking them, but that would seem to be a problem for "ad revenue." Is this a slotting fee scenario? Because I thought that was illegal for booze. Far as that goes, what's Wegmans get out of it? The lure of the kiosk? Garces Trading Company, anyone?

Oh, and ask yourself this: what kind of smart-ass answer will the kiosk give you if you tell it you'd like a nice bottle of cabernet franc?

Finally, after you've asked all those questions, ask yourself this: isn't it time you wrote your legislator and told them that they should support Mike Turzai's bill to abolish the State Store System?

Abolish the PLCB! Rewrite the Code! KILL THE KIOSKS!

"There is no such wine."

2010-06-11T16:15:00.000-04:00

David Falchek blogs about wine ("Empty Bottles") for the Scranton Times-Tribune, and does a nice job. He also...doesn't think much of the PLCB and the State's monopoly on booze sales. Read this classic tale of just what I'm talking about when I say that the State Store System doesn't exist to serve the citizens or to "protect" them through "control." It exists to serve the State and the employees; it exists to take your money.

Do you know everything about vodka, yellowtail wines, and schlock liqueurs?

2010-05-26T13:57:00.000-04:00

The PLCB is advertising an opening for Director of Product Selection. Good pay, too, starting at just under $61,000 to over $90,000, depending on experience.

Could someone with a freakin' clue please apply for this job?

Lawsuit looming over PLCB's monopoly extension at Garces Trading Co.

2010-05-26T13:53:00.000-04:00

And it's about time.

Brownstoner, the Philly real estate blog, is reporting that the Washington Square West Civic Association, State Rep. Babette Josephs are joining with about a dozen Philly restaurants -- Le Bec Fin, Tria, Lolita, Fergie's, and Caribou Cafe among them -- in filing suit against the PLCB over the "wine boutique" they've placed in Garces Trading Company. It's not fair to work with one restaurant owner, they say.

The following quote pretty much summed it up for me, especially the first sentence:

"I have nothing but admiration for Jose Garces—this issue is not about him," Jon Myerow, the owner of Tria, said in a statement. "The issue is that of all restaurants being able to compete on a level playing field. In no other state has the alcohol governing body entered the restaurant industry to compete against the very businesses it regulates, all while partnering with hand-selected competitors. The incredible amount of choice we enjoy when dining out shows the free market at its best. If restaurants are forced to compete against the state, eventually there will be fewer restaurants."

Right. Remember Dominic Origlio's line from the PLCB hearings? "I would be remiss without mentioning what I believe is the underlying cause of these regulatory and enforcement problems. Pennsylvania's beer industry is regulated by its competitor -- the Liquor Control Board, a state run corporation which sells wine and liquor."

Inherently unfair; now expressly unfair. Get Pennsylvania out of the retail booze business. Today.

PLCB renews liquor license for convicted felon's nuisance bar: way to go, Joe!

2010-05-25T00:04:00.000-04:00

Watch this video from Philly's NBC10, then tell me: is there any doubt that this is not just an agency that has outlived its usefulness, but one that is not even competent to perform the duties it has? After watching this report, I have to conclude that the PLCB has either made a policy of lying to the public, or has fostered such an atmosphere of incompetence that they actually don't know what they're doing. This is an agency in need of such re-working that it's time to do away with it. Tear it down, and start over, without the mistakes.

Beer Raid Resolution

2010-05-21T08:19:00.000-04:00

Heard from Leigh Maida that the Memphis44Resurrection Raids are officially over; they got closure. All the details are here. What does all this come to? Well, for this incident, exactly nothing. Less than nothing: the BLCE blew thousands of dollars of your money out their collective asses to accomplish...a warning letter about a non-event.

Overall? A LOT of people learned just how archaic PA's booze laws are. That's a win for us. Don't let up!

Thank God: Wine Kiosks Still Viable!

2010-05-12T17:01:00.002-04:00

It looks like my usually reliable source was wrong: the wine kiosks live! I'm so happy; I was really looking forward to seeing these wastes of money in operation. Thank you, PLCB, for restoring my faith in your bad decision-making capability!

Check out this latest hot wine kiosk news, in which PLCB Chairman PJ "PJ" Stapleton threatens that prototype wine kiosk deployment will take place at the Wegmans in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County (which also sells beer!), and the Giant Food Store in Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County (which does not...). These are both hot-spots of wine-savvy grape mavens, I guess. Or maybe they're down the road from someone's house, I dunno. They're close to PLCB HQ, of course, and, like Jose Garces's ~~restaurant~~ -- I'm sorry, his grocery store, they were hand-picked by the PLCB to receive the largesse of extended monopoly.

According to the article, "The LCB has been testing the machines in a warehouse in Mechanicsburg for three months, making mostly technical and mechanical alterations to ensure the kiosks work properly, Stapleton said." I'll just bet. Wouldn't you like to have been there to watch the bottles full of water (you don't think...would they actually use real bottles of wine?!) come rolling out? The excitement as the teleoperator (were they in a completely different room of the building?!) determined whether the person utilizing the vending kiosk was the person their ID said they were, and were sober? There's a beaut: did they actually get someone drunk to test that?

I can't wait to drive to the Weggymans and try this dope device out. I may even buy a viddie-cam to share the moment with you. Won't that be fun!

Folks...the way to get wine sales into supermarkets -- which is clearly where the people who actually buy wine in Pennsylvania want them -- is to dump the State Store System and go to private sales: put wine on the shelves, not in some souped-up gumball machine. It's something we should have done 50 years ago. Here's hoping the kiosks are the final straw that demonstrate just how asinine this system is.

Oh, almost forgot: cui bono?You need to ask? Read this again, and then think: ask not what you can do for your State; ask what your State is doing to you.

How losing six-pack sales may win us six-pack sales

2010-05-11T14:43:00.001-04:00

The Malt Beverage Distributors Association (MBDA) is, and has been fighting the whole idea of six-packs in supermarkets (and convenience stores) for years. I can't blame them -- it's not really fair that Wegmans can sell six-packs while distributors cannot -- but it's not really fair that we can only buy them in bars, either. I also question the wisdom of pursuing it at this point, when beer has been sold in some Pennsylvania supermarkets for over a year. I'll explain that in a moment. Meanwhile, here's what they had to say about it, from the MBDA website.

On April 14, 2010 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Wegmans case. Representing MBDA was Robert B. Hoffman of Eckert Seamans law firm, who had successfully argued the Sheetz case for MBDA before the same Court in 2008.

Robert Heim of the Dechert law firm was brought in to argue on behalf of Wegmans.
It was an active court with the justices asking many questions of all parties. Those questions focused on whether it was sufficient that the Wegmans' Market Cafes qualify as a restaurant and whether the fact that they were part and parcel of and located within Wegmans made any difference. MBDA argued that the PLCB needed to look at the economic reality of the beer sales, which indicate that Wegmans Supermarket, not Wegmans Restaurant, is making the sales. Wegmans responded that it is within the PLCB's discretion to decide if interconnections between a supermarket and a restaurant disqualify a restaurant from holding a license to sell take-out beer. Wegmans [sic] contention is critical because, if correct, the standard of review that the Supreme Court must apply is to determine if the PLCB abused its discretion. The Supreme Court cannot simply substitute its own judgment for that of the PLCB's. However, if as MBDA contends, the issue is not one of abuse of discretion but simply whether or not the Liquor Code allows supermarkets to sell beer, which is what Wegmans Supermarket is doing, then the Supreme Court can apply its own analysis of whether or not the PLCB correctly interpreted the Liquor Code in reaching its decision to allow Wegmans to have a license.

MBDA made a very strong argument, both factual, during the multiple Wegmans hearings that stretched over two years and still continue today with regard to other supermarket chains, and legal, as to why Wegmans is not entitled to a license. We believe the Court will carefully consider all the issues raised and issue its decision by late 2010.

I grew up in Lancaster County, so let me use a farm analogy. The MBDA is locking the stable after their horse already ran away. Pennsylvanians have been buying beer at supermarkets for over a year. They have seen that the MBDA's arguments are hollow, bogus, bullshit. "Kids" aren't buying beer at supermarkets, children aren't irreparably freaked out by seeing beer for sale at supermarkets (any more than my nieces are in New York), drunks aren't hanging around the stores or running over people in the parking lot. What is happening is that beer distributors' businesses are slumping in value, because a large hole has been poked in their monopoly; people who wouldn't go into a bar to buy a six-pack are going into the Giant Eagle.

More importantly, if the MBDA should prevail in this court case, and the Supreme Court rules that these licenses are void...it will be a disaster for the MBDA. If you give Pennsylvanians beer in supermarkets for a year...and then take it away, I guarantee you, they'll be furious. Their legislators will hear about it, the newspapers will write about it, hell, I'll sing about it!

The MBDA should not have put all their eggs in the litigation basket. They should have been lobbying for the Legislature to fix up the very best deal that they could get. Instead...they're locking the stable door. Bad move. There were smarter plays to make. Winning may lose them everything.

Get Mom Vodka For Mother's Day? Why not?

2010-05-08T14:21:00.001-04:00

If you've never heard of the Independent State Store Union, you're missing some fun. They're the union that represents the managers of the State Store System, and they have a real love-hate relationship with the PLCB and the state's monopoly on liquor and wine sales: they love to complain about the PLCB, and they apparently hate alcohol and working late. They put out press releases all the time, critical of the PLCB's policies and the Board members themselves; they're usually inadvertently hilarious in their earnestness.

Recently, they sent an editorial to the Centre Daily Times suggesting that the serious abusive drinking situation at Penn State could be alleviated...by shorter hours in the State Stores. You can only assume that they'd expect to get the same pay for those shorter hours, but that probably has nothing to do with their idea, it's all about the children. They do display a disturbing disgust with alcohol, considering their job is selling it: "the PLCB continues to promote a carnival-like alcohol atmosphere for drinkers..." I haven't seen any tilt-a-whirls at my local State Store, but I'll keep an eye out for them.

Their latest press release is here...oh, to hell with it. I'll just reprint it. It's a press release, right, and this is the press, right? Fair use! They're upset that the PLCB has an ad campaign suggesting that folks buy their mothers a nice bottle of vodka for Mother's Day. Actually, they're freaking out about it.

"Your Mother's Day promotional radio ad program costing $142,000 is more damaging to the common good of all Pennsylvanians than the mere dollars expended. You refuse as Board and chief staff members to make any decision that is contrary to the most outrageous marketing strategies of the alcohol beverage industry no matter what effect they have on the public good. You are collectively the number one drug pushers in Pennsylvania. As puppets of the alcohol beverage industry, you have abdicated any role of being a regulator against the bottom line interests of the industry," says Ed Cloonan, Information Director for ISSU.
Cloonan continues, "Your Mother's Day radio/print hawking promotions makes a joke of alcohol education for women. In advance of Mother's Day 2011, you will be able to send coupons and frequent drinker credit rewards to pregnant women."

ISSU is asking all five gubernatorial campaigns to replace the three PLCB Board members, the CEO, the Director of Marketing and Merchandising, and the Director of Retail Operations as quickly as possible after the winning candidate assumes office in a new administration."

Where to begin?The guys who manage the stores that sell booze are accusing their bosses of being "drug pushers," they stoop to the lowest sort of neo-prohibitionist hype-drivel ("frequent drinker credit rewards to pregnant women," forsooth!), and...they're calling for their boss to be fired. Now, I'm all for calling for my boss to be fired if they deserve it; I did it while in federal service in 1989...but I did it in my exit interview. Because publicly saying your boss should be fired -- for selling drugs!-- is usually tantamount to submitting your resignation. This is a big Reason to abolish the State Store System: to do away with counter-intuitive foolishness like this.

This report on WHTM (ABC affiliate in Harrisburg) shows what a mountain is being made out of this molehill. This is all -- pardon the expression -- bullshit. No one mentions the key point: selling and buying a bottle of vodka is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania (as long as the person selling the bottle is a State Store System employee or an employee of one of the very few licensees that offer bottle service, and the person purchasing it is of legal age). Giving it to a legal age woman is legal, whether or not she has children of any age. To suggest otherwise is sexist, foolish, and offensive.

In summation, I'm actually neutral on this, as far as the PLCB goes. I still say that a state agency acting like a retail business is simply absurd. But I don't see this as a particularly bad example of that absurdity, like, say, the Courtesy Contract was. On the other hand, the ISSU is a great example of the kind of bizarre situation that a state retail monopoly on booze sales can generate. Kill the State Store System as a favor to the ISSU: they hate selling alcohol...let them find a new, cleaner job selling something else.

Full disclosure, as always. I have a horse in this race: I got Cathy gin for Mother's Day, and I thought of it before I heard the ads (and I'm pretty sure she won't see this before tomorrow morning). She likes gin, and there's no reason she should suffer just because I usually prefer beer and whisky. So she's getting a hand-assembled gin bouquet; I think it turned out rather well.

Video on the Hearings

2010-05-04T14:03:00.000-04:00

In case you missed it (I did, and I'm in the damned thing!), Stephen Metzger put together a video report on the hearings, including the kick-ass moment when Representative John Taylor shouted down Major Lutz of the State Police. Check it out here.

The PLCB Hearings, Part I

2010-05-04T13:46:00.000-04:00

By rights, I should have posted this here, but the other blog gets a lot more traffic. So rather than double-post, here's a link. This covers the testimony of Leigh Maida (of Memphis Taproom, et al) and Dominic Origlio (of Origlio Beverage), the two raided business owners. Next installment: Joe "CEO" Conti, Major Lutz of the State Police, and Artie Tafoya of Appalachian Brewing. Final installment: comments after the hearing from legislators, video, the after-party, and summation. And then...maybe some follow-up, which is sadly lacking. Until then...

Joe "CEO" Conti weeps for his threatened empire

2010-04-21T14:23:00.000-04:00

Philadelphia Daily News political columnist John Baer writes on Representative Turzai's privatization plan here, and it's a good one. His first reaction to Turzai's idea: "I'll drink to that." It gets better from there.

Baer talks to Joe "CEO" Conti at the end of the piece. It's too good, too delicious not to quote Conti's "Why me, Lord, why me?" cri de couer...so I will.

Also, CEO Joe Conti tells me that past studies say that over time the LCB provides the state more money than a private system promises. He adds, "The board and our agency work diligently to increase the revenue we return to taxpayers, and we let the Legislature and the governor deliberate over privatization."

As if you could stop them! And let's not forget that you're fleecing the taxpayers to get that 'revenue' in the first place. But I like Baer's response to Conti's "and we let the Legislature and the governor deliberate over privatization" line:

"I hope they do - if not this year, then soon."

Yeah. That's about all this Repeal-era relic deserves.

Turzai Rides Again: new plan to dump the State's retail monopoly in the legislature

2010-04-21T14:14:00.000-04:00

Representative Mike Turzai of Allegheny County has introduced legislation to eliminate the state's retail monopoly on wine and spirits sales. This is a well-considered proposal, one I can definitely get behind. Check the points (and my comments):

Privatizes wholesale operations by auctioning off 100 wholesale distribution licenses to the highest responsible bidder (key point: we do not want to leave wholesale in the hands of the PLCB)
Auction off 750 retail store licenses (more than we have now)
A biennial license renewal fee and a transfer of license fee, similar to other license application and transfer fees currently in place, will be assessed by the PLCB (make them both substantial)
Auction off the inventories of the current state stores
PLCB would be required to divest itself from the retail sale of wine and spirits over a two-year period (smart; it will take that long (and give us the chance to snaffle some bargains))
No person or business may own more than 10 percent of the wholesale distribution licenses statewide; no person or business can own more than 10 percent of state stores statewide (crucial, and I'd like to see provisions similar to those in the gambling licensing that keep felons out of the business, and state representatives, too; no paddling your fingers in this while you have influence).
The state would move to a gallonage tax, which would range between $2 and $6 per gallon for wine and spirits (generally lower than what we pay now, and... No more Johnstown Flood Tax, no more Johnstown Flood Tax!)
The PLCB will retain its enforcement, licensing, inspections and alcohol education authority (with, I hope, more oversight than they have now)
State and local police will have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce state liquor laws (excellent!)
All store employees must be 21 years of age (okay; not a problem, although 18 year olds can serve wine and spirits at bars now)
PLCB employees who wish to continue being employed by the Commonwealth will be given preference in applying for other state jobs; there would be tax credits for private businesses who hire them, or tuition assistance for college or technical school (very fair, and a major point)

Honestly, the only quibble I would have is the number of retail licenses (but if you allow beer distributors to expand their license to include selling wine and spirits for a one-time fee -- a large one -- I see a beautiful solution). This covers almost everything I would put in a bill.

Discussion? And what can we do to help?

I got some questions about this...

2010-04-11T23:11:00.001-04:00

Just sent this e-mail to the members of the PA Senate Law and Justice committee (and my own Senator, Robert Tomlinson). I'll be at the hearings on Tuesday, and I'll report on what happens.

Honorable Senators,
I'll be attending Tuesday's joint hearing conducted by the Law and Justice Committee and the House Liquor Control Committee regarding the recent Bureau of Liquor Control enforcement (BLCE) "raids" in Philadelphia. This is a matter of great interest and concern to me (and to quite a few others, as evidenced by the public outcry at the injustice of these events). I've taken the liberty of creating the following list of questions I'd like to see addressed at these hearings. I hope you would consider them.

•    What purpose is served by brand registration? How does this arcane and clearly imperfect process best meet that need? If that need can be met by simpler means, why not do away with beer registration altogether?

•    Why was the cost of registration recently raised from $25 per brand to $75 (especially when other states have registration fees as low as $1)? Can there at least be an exemption of registration for brewpubs that only sell beer on-premises?

•    Why was the response to this complaint three simultaneous raids carried out by multiple armed BLCE agents, during lunch hour? Why not one plainclothes agent armed with a clipboard to straighten out what is clearly a bureaucratic issue?

•    What is being done to insure that the BLCE's “anonymous complaint” process is not used to harass licensees, either by competitors or malcontents?

•    Where is the oversight on the BLCE? The PLCB repeatedly said, in the aftermath of the raids, that it was not responsible for the actions of the BLCE; the State Police also distanced themselves. For that matter, who does the PLCB answer to, other than indirectly to the Legislature, through the Liquor Code?

•    At the heart of things, is the PA Liquor Code just too byzantine and confusing for licensees – and enforcement agents! – to understand? Could the Code be substantially simplified without undercutting taxation and enforcement?

•    And of course: why does the State continue to hold a retail monopoly on the sale of wine and liquor? As an American citizen in 2010, how is it possibly fair that I cannot legally travel 15 miles into New Jersey, buy a bottle of wine, and bring it home to drink? The monopoly is unfair, and there are no compelling reasons in the public good to continue it.

As I said, I will be present on Tuesday to see how the hearing proceeds, and to report on those proceedings. I hope the hearing is fruitful, and brings progress to the process of making Pennsylvania's liquor laws more fair, more transparent, and more responsive to the desires of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Sincerely,

Lew Bryson

Terrible PLCB news!

2010-04-08T22:59:00.000-04:00

I just heard from an internal PLCB source who's been pretty reliable that the wine kiosk idea is dead. That's really bad news, because I was hoping it would be a public relations disaster for the PLCB. I'll just have to see what I can do to shove it up their nose anyway.

By the way, speaking of public relations disasters? The courtesy contract was renewed.

Another voice calls for simplifying the liquor code...in Connecticut

2010-03-19T08:36:00.000-04:00

Just saw this editorial from Chris Powell in the Middletown (Conn.) Press. His thesis: the reason there are so many "mom and pop" liquor stores in Connecticut is because it's about political patronage. Take a look at these bits:

Through licensing regulations state government has erected many barriers to entry, particularly barriers to doing business on a large scale with low cost and efficiency. There are more than 40 categories of liquor permits and they are tightly controlled. Supermarkets can sell only beer, not other alcoholic beverages. State government controls the hours of operation for alcohol sales, and Sunday sales are banned. The state also controls and pushes up liquor prices...
Liquor takes up 100 pages in the Connecticut General Statutes, but state regulation is just a start. Then there are the usual municipal zoning regulations. State law even allows towns to forbid liquor sales on their own, and some towns still do, as if their own liquor traffic is properly foisted on neighboring towns.
The scheme has been to diminish competition, drive costs up, put more people into the business, and make them dependent on political favor.

Sound familiar? Go read the rest. We're not alone, either in our problems or in our desire for a solution.

Why does beer brand registration exist?

2010-03-11T22:15:00.001-05:00

In the wake of the beer registration massacre and fiasco, a question pops to mind: why does Pennsylvania law require beer brand registration? The answer -- as it is many times with The Almighty Liquor Code -- is not so easy to find. It's a lot like the case law: we've been doing it for 78 years, and no one has any real idea why we started.

What will people tell you? Well, how about Francesca Chapman, the PLCB's usual spokeswoman? Don Russell asked her why in his story in the Daily News, and she said that "the registration requirement helps the state assure payment of state beer taxes and helps prosecutors identify alcoholic beverages in drunk-driving cases or any other type of prosecution."

We'll get to the second part down below. For the first part, I don't see how registration helps in tax payment. Because of the three-tier system and PA's other laws about beer, there is a paper trail a mile long on every beer sale in the Commonwealth: beer comes into the wholesaler -- paperwork -- it goes out to the retailer -- paperwork. And the state can demand the paperwork at any time to see if there is beer on premises that did not go through the taxing process; same thing with self-distributing brewers. You can't escape the tax unless both parties are willing to engage in behavior that could very easily leave them without a license -- and therefore without a business. No one has seriously suggested that taxes were being evaded by selling unregistered brands.

Who's next? Unnamed "Harrisburg enforcement officers" in Rick Nichols piece on the raids in today's Inquirer say the reason is to "protect consumers." Nichols ponders, "How else to know whether the beer is from Victory (legit) or a backyard home-brewer (not)?" I hope he's being facetious (and I'm sure he is). Because if it's a bottle, it has to have a federally-approved label; if it's a draft, by law it's supposed to be dispensed from a tap with the name of the beer it's pouring clearly displayed. (and that's a law that I DO wish would be enforced more often...but that's another story). Does registration do anything? Not at all: again, there's already a paper trail in place that shows where the beer came from, and besides...nobody bothers counterfeiting beer labels. This is ridiculous on the face of it.

There's one more. A brewer I was talking to told me he'd attended a meeting where then-PLCB chief counsel Francis X. O'Brien Jr. about 8 years ago. They asked him why there was a need for brand registration (you'd think he'd know, right?), and O'Brien said it was for criminal cases involving drinking: underage drinking, DUI, and the like. If beer cans or bottles were found on the scene, the prosecuting attorney could use the brand's presence on the registered list to prove that the beer was beer, and thus contained alcohol. My first thought: you gotta be kidding! Then I remembered this court case in Reading a few years ago -- the story's funny, but the facts are serious: they actually needed to prove that Miller Genuine Draft was beer. I don't really think we need a whole system of brand registration just to prove that beer is beer. Could we, I don't know, "stipulate" that in the "rules of evidence" somewhere? Not to mention, it does them no good if the drunk was drinking draft!

I see no good reason for a brand registration law, not even the registration fee (it's less than $300,000 for the whole current list, and the BLCE just blew through about half that with these raids anyway). Unless...take a look at the registration form, particularly the second page. Is registration all about making sure what wholesaler has an exclusive on the brand; is this about marking your territory? If it is...I'm sorry, but once again, I do not understand why it is the state's concern. Let the wholesalers worry about enforcing their exclusivity contracts. There are civil courts, are there not? Does any other industry get this kind of enforcement support from the State? Maybe the dairy industry, but milk ain't beer. If this is what brand registration is about, and wholesalers are still caught with unregistered beers (and the registration list isn't worth the electrons it's printed on anyway -- Don, excellent work here!)...

Why are we registering beers at all? I really want to hear tough questioning on that when the hearings on these raids are held next month.

Vintage beers okay: nothing to worry about!

2010-03-10T16:37:00.000-05:00

Just got off the phone with a PA brewer (who prefers to remain anonymous...and as long as the BLCE keeps that up, so will I), who told me they'd talked to the brand registration folks at the PLCB and had this to add to the discussion. Vintage beers -- older beers that are no longer brewed, or beers from defunct breweries like Heavyweight or King & Barnes -- that have already been purchased by a retailer are not in danger of causing a citation for unregistered beers. Once beer is purchased by the retailer, assuming it was registered when purchased, it is "grandfathered in," and the retailer doesn't have to worry. So if you're a bar owner or a distributor or a deli, and you've got beers you're aging? Don't worry about it.

Well, not exactly. Note that wholesalers are not afforded this protection, and there is nothing to keep the BLCE from checking their list, not finding those aging beers, and confiscating them. But you can't be fined or suspended for having them, and you can file paperwork to get them back.

I'm not sure just how good I feel about this.

Call for suspension of confiscation

2010-03-10T11:21:00.000-05:00

I just sent versions of the following to my state senator, representative, and Gov. Rendell:

RE: "Please consider suspending confiscations of "unregistered beer."

I'm sure you're aware of the recent actions of the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement in Philadelphia. BLCE agents raided three bars last Thursday -- on the basis of an anonymous tip -- to look for beers that were not registered in Pennsylvania. Some 60 gallons of beer, with an estimated value of over $7000, was seized. Monday night, the BLCE raided a major beer wholesaler in Philadelphia and seized beer as well. This is not a case of tax evasion: all taxes were paid on the beer. They were just not registered; an oversight.

These raids have caused consternation among the retailers potentially and actually affected by the actions; the responsibility for registration is the manufacturer's, not the retailer's.

The raids were unnecessary: send a PLCB bureaucrat to the wholesaler who supplies the beer, and give them the power to accept a fee and register any unregistered brands on the spot. I would suspect you'd see 100% compliance.

The raids were a public relations disaster; just have a look at the coverage in the Philadelphia papers.

The raids were of suspicious motivation: why were these three widely-separated bars (all owned by one couple) singled out; what "civilian" would even know that a violation was taking place; why does the BLCE insist on keeping the identity of the complainant secret?

The raids were also, sad to say, poorly implemented: the PLCB's list of registered brands is poorly maintained, and at least one beer, "Duvel", is being confiscated because of a clerical error. Duvel is registered and has been registered for years.

There are already calls for hearings to investigate the matter from Reps. Robert Donatucci and John Taylor. I would strongly urge you to call for an immediate suspension of further confiscations (taking place under Section 4-444, para C of the state Liquor Code) until such hearings can take place. An immediate suspension would allow a cooling off period, and allow the hearings to take place at a measured pace.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Lewis Bryson

Action...maybe

2010-03-10T09:07:00.000-05:00

Today's Inquirer reports that there is some action being considered in Harrisburg on the beer registration raids.

But in Harrisburg, several lawmakers are wondering whether the registration regulation - as well as other portions of the state's liquor code - are in need of updating. Rep. Robert Donatucci (D., Phila.), who chairs the House Liquor Control Committee, will be holding hearings to determine just that, Lynn Benka-Davies, the committee's executive director, said yesterday.

Well...that's a start. But what we should be doing is using this issue as the fulcrum to plant our lever to topple the whole thing, to bring down The Almighty Liquor Code.

Here's your course of action. First, instruct the BLCE to immediately stop enforcement activity on the registration law. Cut their budget, if necessary. Don't cry: this kind of thing happens all the time, it happened during Prohibition. It's an admission that a law needs fixing. The law serves no good purpose.

Next, quick-fix the beer registration part of the Code -- by deep-sixing it. Don't try to "fix" it, don't do the stupid Alabama thing where they lifted the 'cap' on beer ABV from a ridiculously low 5% to a higher but no less nonsensical 13.9% out of some misguided vision that they were preserving something. Brand registration is a relic, a fossil; the important thing is tax collection. Unless someone can come up with a really good reason to keep brand registration, dump it. Because the way it's being implemented and enforced is broken.

THEN...create a group to examine The Almighty Liquor Code with an eye to completely rewriting it. The group should include sitting legislators, PLCB reps, industry reps (brewers/importers, wholesalers, and retailers), a lawyer specializing in PA booze law, a rep from an anti-alcohol group (because their agenda has to be considered to get buy-in), and, most importantly, consumer representation...because we keep getting forgotten and locked out.

Rewrite the Code! Clean up the beer laws. Dump all the fossil relic crap that no one even remembers the reasons for why it's there. Privatize liquor and wine sales. Fix the licensing system. Level the market. If three-tier is left in place -- which I'm not against -- make it more fair to all involved. Break up the functions of the PLCB. Re-cast the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax. Create new incentives for self-policing (stuff like rewards for seizing fake IDs, for instance).

Don't be afraid. Citizens: neighboring states don't have these laws, and yet their alcohol problems are not greater or worse than Pennsylvania's. Licensees: if you get involved in the process instead of balking it, you can help make it beneficial by freeing you to do more with your business (full-service "all-alcohol" retail stores, inventory delivered to bars by wholesalers at reasonable prices, the ability to amass wine cellars on par with New York restaurants, less paperwork). Brewers: you can stop looking over your shoulders. PLCB employees: jobs will be created, opportunities will be created, and if the process is at all fair, you will be provided for (early retirement packages, preferential hiring on state jobs, loan packages to open your own private wine stores, etc.).

We have put up with this shit for almost 80 years. It's time to reap the fruits of Repeal.

Not just Philly

2010-03-10T08:11:00.001-05:00

Reader David Staab reports on Facebook that three BLCE agents were at Shangy's (the well-known "Beer Mecca" in Emaus, PA) yesterday.

Is this a state-wide "effort"? Gotta be more satisfying than trying to close nuisance bars (the bars noted in State College were the scenes of open underage drinking, countless noise violations, and a murder, but it only took the PLCB four years to close them...and Stapleton's so proud of that he brags about it in the linked editorial). Write your legislator now. This pointless harassment of PA business needs to be stopped.

Beer Raids Part II: dropping the big one

2010-03-09T23:56:00.000-05:00

Just saw this on Don Russell's Beer Radar blog. The BLCE raided Origlio Beverage last night. Some points from Don's post:

The Bureau of Liquor Enforcement agents arrived about 7 p.m. last night and conducted a search of the warehouse, specifically looking for Origlio’s share of brands they’d confiscated from the bars last week. This includes: Duvel, Monk’s Cafe Sour Flemish Ale, Hacker-Pschorr and Russian River Supplication.
They reportedly confiscated only the Supplication because they would’ve needed a tractor trailer for the rest. They ordered Origlio not to distribute any of the other brands.

I'm guessing they didn't bring a tractor trailer because they had no freakin' clue how big these brands are in this market.

Here's my question. If the taxes on these beers were paid -- and I have no doubt whatsoever they were -- is the BLCE really holding up thousands and thousands of dollars worth of beer, crimping the business of hundreds of Philadelphia bars, restaurants, and distributors, putting jobs at jeopardy...all over a piddling $600 in registration fees? (That's $75 each for Duvel, Monk's Sour, Supplication, and 5 H-P brands listed on Origlio's website.) Are you shitting me?

Another quote from Don, because he said it just fine:

What we’re witnessing isn’t just bureaucratic incompetence or the result of outdated laws. This is an act of unrepentant arrogance. As one local restaurant operator remarked of the BLE, “They don’t answer to anybody. They’re running amok.”

What have I told you time after time? It's the arrogance of this agency that is simply jaw-dropping.

I'm going to have to quote Buddy "I married a PLCB manager" Hobart to express what I feel about this new initiative. "What I say to the skeptical," said Buddy Hobart, president of Solutions 21, "to those of us in the world who believe we've arrived and don't need to improve: Look up the word arrogant in the dictionary." When you find that page, I believe you'll find the PLCB logo next to that definition.

They do, however, have some shame. The PLCB has an auto-response going now for e-mails about the raids in which they deny any responsibility. Here's what it says:

This is in response to your inquiry regarding the recent raids of three Philadelphia-area bars, conducted by the Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement ("BLCE"), in which the PSP, BLCE apparently confiscated beers that may or may not have been properly registered for sale in Pennsylvania.
The raids in question were conducted by the PSP, BLCE, not the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("Board"). The officers involved are employed by the PSP,BLCE and not the Board. The Board and the BLCE are two distinct agencies. Therefore, your inquires should be directed to the PSP, BLCE Harrisburg Headquarters. Their contact number is 717-540-7410.

As always, should you become a subject of ridicule or public outrage, the Chairman will disavow any knowledge of your actions. I always knew the PLCB was arrogant. I didn't know they were also gutless buck-passers, but it shouldn't surprise me. The BLCE is funded by the PLCB, they exist to enforce the PLCB's regulations.

As I keep saying, the thing to do...is write your legislator. Tell them things have gone too far. The PLCB, the BLCE, it doesn't matter which; they're out of control. It's time to break them, to bring them to heel. Rewrite the Code. People keep telling me it can't be done. I don't see any other thing to do.

New Facebook page

2010-03-09T15:34:00.000-05:00

This seemed like the right time to grab hold of the wave -- this blog just had its biggest day ever for hits yesterday, five times the previous highest day, and almost as much as the biggest day I ever had on Seen Through A Glass -- so I started a Facebook group: "Abolish the PLCB -- Rewrite the Code!" If you're on Facebook, come join us. We'll have tips on how to contact your legislators and what to say, advice on how and when to write letters/e-mails to newspapers, and maybe...we'll start talking about rallies and events. Stay tuned. This might be approaching critical mass.

State Rep John Taylor: "a ridiculous use of enforcement manpower"

2010-03-09T10:59:00.000-05:00

Last Thursday's raid on three Philly bars -- all owned by the same couple -- for "unregistered beer brands" has caught fire in the media. Hundreds of comments are swamping stories on the Daily News website, stories like the one today where Rep. John Taylor (whose 177th District is home to the Memphis Taproom, one of the bars raided) blasted the raids.

THE TOP Republican on the House Liquor Control Committee said yesterday that the State Police engaged in "a ridiculous use of enforcement manpower" last week when more than a dozen officers staged raids on three Philadelphia bars, suspected of selling beers not registered in Pennsylvania.
"I don't know why they would use that many people to track down an issue like this that could have been handled with a routine inspection," said state Rep. John Taylor, whose legislative district includes one of the bars, the Memphis Taproom, in Port Richmond.

Taylor puts his finger right on the problem. Here's what I said in a comment on Andy Crouch's Beerscribe blog:

Why is a “raid” necessary? Here’s an option: instead of five armed cops walking in on a lunch crowd and seizing beers, how about one bureaucrat comes by with a clipboard to see if unregistered beers are on the premises? If any resistance is offered, backup is a phone call away, and resistance won’t look good on the complaint. Find the unregistered beers and — here’s another thought — get the wholesaler on the line and arrange for payment of the fee and registration on the spot. Done, under the radar, no business disruption, the beer’s registered, the state’s happy, and it costs so much less than sending five cops (and looking like idiots in the press).

I remember having this same thought about ten years ago when I went to my first State College Micro Expo beer festival (a festival that was largely regulated to death, unfortunately). As I arrived about half an hour before the fest started, one of the fest organizers was being lectured -- hectored, really -- by a red-faced PLCB enforcement agent about unregistered beers at the festival. "There are unregistered beers at this festival," he shouted, "and they will not be served, or I will shut this thing down!" The organizer took care of it -- a pain in the ass, but what are you going to do? -- and later told me that the PLCB had first contacted him about the problem less than two days before.

And I thought to myself then...wouldn't it have been better all-round if instead of getting up in the guy's face like that, the PLCB agent had instead said, I understand there are some beers coming to the fest that are unregistered. Let me help you with the paperwork, you cut me a check, and we'll get that all squared away in time for the fest? No stress, no screaming, and the state...has revenue. Wow. Would that make sense? What am I missing?

Oh, and in case you were wondering? The PLCB went after the unregistered brands at the fest...because of an anonymous tip. Best guesses were that it was a local distributor (Zeno's certainly wouldn't have done it: they were making money hand-over-fist that day selling beer to happy geeks). Kinda makes you think that this "anonymous tip" thing should go away too.

And now...video

2010-03-08T20:06:00.000-05:00

Here's the story on Action News. I especially liked this part:

Authorities stress if Hartranft thinks any of the confiscated beer is registered all he has to do is show them the paperwork. "We would happy to have for them to come down, show us they are registered. If they are they can sign the property record and take custody of them," explained Sgt. La Torre.

That would be the same Sgt. La Torre quoted in the Daily News today, I suppose.

State Police Sgt. William N. La Torre, commanding officer of the Philadelphia office of the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, said that he was not aware of any beers that had been mistakenly confiscated.
La Torre said that the beer would be kept in a secured location, as evidence, until the case is resolved, probably in six to eight months. If an administrative-law judge finds that the bars possessed unregistered brands, the State Police typically would seek a forfeiture order to destroy the beer, he said. Depending on the temperature of the storage location, some of the beer will likely turn sour in that period.
Maida said that the couple's attorney had told them that they have until 6 p.m. tonight to compile evidence to prove that the confiscated beer is properly registered.

And if they don't get the evidence by...oh, by two hours ago, they can't get the beer. The Sgt. La Torre on the TV, some time later on than the newspaper interview, sounds like a much more conciliatory man. I reckon he don't need a weatherman...

More details (thanks to Don Russell and Bob Warner)

2010-03-08T09:32:00.000-05:00

The Daily News has more details on last week's raids here (be sure to read the comments; public anger is high on this one). Highlights:

four kegs and 317 bottles were seized, which will be kept at "a secured location, as evidence, until the case is resolved, probably in six to eight months." If the beers are found to be unregistered, they will be destroyed (if they're found to be registered, well, they might as well be, after 6-8 months in unrefrigerated storage).
Leigh Maida estimated the value of the beers at $7,200, and said over half of them were properly registered; beers like Duvel and Monk's Cafe Sour, both of which are sold all over the state (but the name on the list doesn't match the label exactly...which would seem to be the fault of the State).
"State Police Sgt. William N. La Torre, commanding officer of the Philadelphia office of the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, said that he was not aware of any beers that had been mistakenly confiscated."
Francesca Chapman, a PLCB spokeswoman, said that the registration requirement helps the state assure payment of state beer taxes and helps prosecutors identify alcoholic beverages in drunk-driving cases or any other type of prosecution. (Because just taxing every beer that comes in isn't enough? Because looking at the label won't do it? If you're not putting the right name of the beer on the "list" to begin with, how much help is it?)
La Torre said that the investigation was sparked by "a citizen complaint. It doesn't matter where the complaint is coming from," he said. (I would say that if the "citizen complaint" came from the owner or employee of another beer-related business...it does matter.)

Nice work. Now...let's dig further into this. Sgt. La Torre is hardly in any position to decide whether where the complaint is coming from "matters." No offense to the officer, but he's a tool being used by the complaining party, and his willingness to protect that person does him no honor. One of the basic principles of American justice is the right to face your accuser. Brendan Hartranft and Leigh Maida, the owners of the three businesses, their partners, and their employees deserve to know who chose to lodge this complaint specifically against them, while these supposedly unregistered beers are sold at bars across the city, the region, and the state. Why not get lists from the wholesalers who delivered these beers and raid every single bar and distributor who received them? Is the BLCE a tool or is it an enforcement agency?

The reasons given for brand registration do not hold up. TAX EVERY BEER, and it doesn't matter what beers are brought in. Every retailer, bar or distributor, is required to keep paperwork on where they buy beers -- wholesaler or direct from a self-distributing PA brewery -- so that's your assurance of payment of state beer taxes. Why do you need to identify the alcohol beverage in a DUI, and why isn't the label identification enough? This is the Internet age: Google the damned thing if you need to know (and you won't be able to identify a draft beer anyway, so what's the point?).

Which brings up another question. Is brand registration actually about ensuring that wholesalers are getting every sale they should be from retail accounts, and retailers are not buying from the "wrong" wholesaler? If it is, why is the state in that business? That should be a problem for the wholesaler to bring in civil court; why are we spending tax dollars to proactively enforce that?

Again, this is an issue for the Legislature. Rewrite the Code. Abolish the PLCB.

The Memphis 44 Resurrection Raids: and why you should care

2010-03-06T17:04:00.001-05:00

This past Thursday the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement and the PLCB carried out three simultaneous raids on Memphis Taproom, Resurrection Ale House, and Local 44. The raids were the result of a complaint that the three bars were selling beers that are not registered with the State. (No one has, at this point, stepped forward to take credit for lodging this complaint; I'm assuming that they're hiding behind "Anonymous.") Each bar was visited by five armed officers -- again, simultaneously, presumably so no one would call the other bars so they could somehow hide cases or kegs -- who proceeded to check beers against the list of registered brands, and confiscated ones they couldn't find on the list. They evidently didn't look too hard: Brendan Hartranft, owner of Memphis, told me yesterday that they seized bottles of Duvel, a beer that's been imported into the US for over 30 years, and is clearly on the list.

I'm an old fart, so when I heard of this, I immediately thought of the raid on The Farmhouse in Emmaus, about 15 years ago. In that case, the folks at the Farmhouse -- which was quite the advanced beer spot in those days -- were doing a series of beer dinners, and had scheduled a winter beer dinner. Traditionally, the holiday beer dinner is the one where you pull out all the stops, and they wanted to have beers no one else had. They tried doing that the legal way -- by getting the beers registered -- but the PLCB dragged their feet and wouldn't clear the paperwork. Finally, the decision was made to get the beers without registration -- maybe not the best idea, but there you are -- and the result was that in the middle of the dinner, over 50 guests were shocked to see three carloads of armed BLCE march into the dining room, where one of them loudly proclaimed "This dinner is OVER!" The guests were asked to leave, and The Farmhouse was shut down for a full inventory of their alcohol. Other than the one unregistered beer...nothing was found. The manager told me that when the head enforcement agent left, he stopped long enough to shake his finger in the manager's face in rage, and yelled at him, "I know you have untaxed alcohol in here, and I'm going to find it!" He never returned.

So what's this tell us? First, that the PLCB is incompetent. Beers were seized at the three bars that were on the registered list, and I know of at least one beer that was not registered that was not seized at any of the three bars. As co-owner Leigh Maida said, "Some of what they confiscated at one location, they left alone at another. Some of what they took is listed plain as day on the PLCB list of registered beers." Brendan told me he does not intend to take back the beers that were wrongly seized. "I don't know what they've done with them," he said. "I don't even know they're my beers."

Second, that the PLCB has no sense of proportion. This violation is approximately equal to a parking ticket -- unregistered brands, for crying out loud? -- but they put fifteen officers on it for three hours, and who knows how much preparation time. Meanwhile there are countless nuisance bars, there are bars serving mislabeled liquor, there are bars all over Pennsylvania where patrons are being overserved...and they blew hundreds of dollars of our money out their butts following up an anonymous tip that someone was serving "unregistered brands"? Come on, guys: if you had the cyber-brains the Bensalem cops have, you could be cruising BeerAdvocate or Facebook and picking up a case like this every week! Seriously, just checking out BeerMenus.com would probably make your quota. But then you wouldn't be available for some "anonymous tipster" to launch you against someone they want to screw, so forget that, right?

That's a direct lead to Third, the idea that someone -- oh, let's say it: that some rival bar or restaurant owner, or maybe a brewer with their nose out of joint (An anti-Memphis44Resurrection commenter at Uncle Jack's site notes "They [Brendan and Leigh] started all of this when they drove to Baltimore to pick up an illegal keg and thumbed their noses at the local brewery" (and there have been suspiciously similar comments made in a number of Philly blogs/forums over the past six months). Which local brewery is left as an exercise for the student...) would deliberately rat out another small beer business leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. That's nasty. That's low. That's...shitty. And there's no excuse for it. None.

Which leads us, however, to the big one, Fourth: this is clearly a violation of PA liquor law. Just take a look, right here, and you'll see it's number 9 on the list of UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES. There's not even any wiggle room here: "It is unlawful to sell, offer for sale or deliver any brand of malt or brewed beverages unless such brand has been registered by the manufacturer or franchised agent thereof with the PLCB." Period. If sale or offer of an unregistered beer has taken place, a crime has been committed. If you sell a beer without the proper paperwork being filed and approved and the $75 fee paid, you're in the deep stuff. It doesn't matter that many many bars and distributors across the Commonwealth are doing it all the time -- and they are, I know it, they know it, and God bless them, because the beer's good -- it is breaking the law.

Well... Why? Why is there a law? I think we're assuming that this is a tax issue. If a brand isn't registered, tax is not being paid, and nothing gives state booze agencies the giddy-up quicker than the thought of losing some pennies (we are talking about pennies, too: PA does have one of the lowest beer taxes in the country). But that's not what's happening in almost every case. The beer's going through channels, tax is being paid, it's just that the state doesn't even realize that it's being paid tax on unregistered brands. (If you're guessing that the state doesn't really care, so long as it gets its taxes...you're right.) It's not even the $75. The real problem is that the state wants the paperwork done, and the fee paid, even for brands that come in once a year, in tiny amounts -- again, no sense of proportion -- and the paperwork takes too long to clear (stop me if you've heard that before).

So let's say it. Brand registration is bullshit. It's a pain in the neck in a state liquor authority full of pains in the neck. Bring the beer in, pay the taxes, sell the beer to the customers. Done. Who needs the registration step? If every beer is taxed, the state gets all the tax revenue, and there is no incentive to break the law because the PLCB is being a pain in the ass with paperwork.

The real problem here is not the PLCB, of course. They went over the top with this one, and they cheerfully allowed themselves to be used as some assclown's goon squad -- which is really troubling -- but they were just following orders. Who gave the orders? The Pennsylvania Legislature, which continues to balk at simplifying and rationalizing The Almighty Liquor Code.

People have suggested sending your complaints to the PLCB through their comment address. You can do that, it's here: RA-LBconsumer@state.pa.us. But who you really should send your comments to is your state legislator. Ask them why brand registration takes so long and costs so much that it discourages businesses from registering. Ask them why brand registration is even in The Almighty Liquor Code. Ask them why the PLCB saw fit to mount such a ridiculous raid for such a pointless infraction. And be sure to ask them why the PLCB would disrupt a business on the word of an anonymous tipster, when that's a practice that's just ripe for abuse.

This is bad enough as an isolated incident. But it speaks volumes about how backwards booze law is in PA, and about how badly it is enforced. Simplify the Code. Abolish the PLCB.

Senator Rafferty Comes Out Swinging

2010-02-17T08:08:00.001-05:00

I have no time to blog about this -- working feverishly on PA Breweries 4 -- but big news yesterday in Harrisburg: State Senator John C. Rafferty (Montgomery-R) held a "rally" for reforming PA's beer laws, the main aim being to allow six-pack sales in grocery stores, convenience stores, and distributors. Read about it here, here (one of Karen Heller's best columns), and most of all here, in Rafferty's own talking points memo (this is a PDF, just to warn you). I'll be back to talk about this when I'm done with the book.

Two things, though. First, thanks to Stan Sheetz, CEO of the PA-based convenience store chain, for really pushing this issue. Second, to the distributors and six-pack store owners and employees who stand to face competition and possibly job losses from this issue: this day was bound to come. Instead of burning your time, money, and customer goodwill by fighting it in courts or the press, step up and compete. Cooperate to get the best possible bill for yourselves. Here's a plan: go for the package store system they have in Massachusetts. Instead of just "fixing" beer sales, do away with the State Store System and make beer distributors eligible to be "all-alcohol" stores, and that's where people buy their booze, from private stores, supplied by privately-owned wholesalers or directly from the suppliers. How's that sound? Radical, hey?

Double-posted to Seen Through A Glass.

Wine sales? Keep them in the State Store, please

2010-02-10T13:23:00.000-05:00

With the opening of the first State Store grocery just around the corner on Tuesday, here's something to make you think about just how unfair that is. Read about why it just doesn't make sense to serve wine in Pennsylvania. Then think about why some of you don't understand why it would make sense to get rid of the State Store System monopoly. And come to your senses, will you?

I swear, I'm going to stop buying anything at the State Stores, law be damned. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a mass protest that someone thought up: a thousand wine lovers go to NJ, and walk back across the Ben Franklin Bridge with a bottle of New Jersey-bought wine. Are they going to arrest us? This is more than ridiculous: it's insulting.

Virginia's new governor talks privatization

2010-01-26T21:44:00.001-05:00

Virginia's new governor wants to privatize liquor sales in the Old Dominion State, and he's willing to talk plainly about it; no pussyfooting. More power to him. We need someone like this in PA, eh?

(I dunno about that host guy's leather jacket, though...)

Big anti-PLCB piece in Philadelphia Weekly

2010-01-14T06:35:00.002-05:00

The issue of Philadelphia Weekly that came out yesterday features a lengthy anti-PLCB screed by Tom Cowell; nice work. (There was a good editorial on the wine kiosks the day before in the Lebanon Daily News, too.) The blog got some mention (bottom of page 2), but much much more importantly, Cowell had clearly been reading it and getting ideas: the number of stores compared to Chicago, how relatively little money we actually get from a complete monopoly on booze sales, the stupidity of the rebranding scheme, the way the PLCB is really just the tool of the legislature.

Which is exactly why this blog is here, to inspire thought and action. Cowell took it and ran with it, talked to union head Wendell Young, found some more issues (the patronage inherent in the State Store System, for example), and got a new crowd of folks stirred up. I'm very happy to see it happen.

Keep spreading the word. PRIVATIZE IT NOW!

(And if you feel like supporting me in the comments to this piece...feel free, but remember to keep it on track: it's all about abolishing the PLCB and rewriting The Almighty Liquor Code!)

Wino 9000

2010-01-06T14:06:00.002-05:00

Okay, it's silly and juvenile, but I'll admit it: I giggled. Take a look at someone who has treated the wine kiosk ideas with exactly what they deserve: derision.

New Year's Resolutions

2010-01-05T18:35:00.000-05:00

It's that time of year when we think about how to make ourselves better in the coming year. I'm thinking about how to make this blog better.

Write more Reasons. I haven't written a Reason in months. I will do that.

Get the Winevolk involved. We've barely touched what is possibly the second-worst aspect of the State Store System (after what they've done with bourbon): the wine selection. Plenty of room to rip 'em a hole: signage, storage, selection, selling...just to name a few.

Beat up The Almighty Liquor Code. Pennsylvania could be made a lot more pleasant place to enjoy a drink -- not get all liquored up, but enjoy a drink -- if certain ridiculous things were added to and subtracted from The Almighty Liquor Code. Make more suggestions on that.

Get the mainstream media more involved. Letters to the editor, e-mails to reporters, call-ins to radio shows. Get everyone up to speed on just how dopey this system is.

Get some video going on. You know what I mean: video of those wine kiosks in operation, right here on the blog. I'm gonna be a vidstar!

Bring the beer. Though I continue to complain about the State Store System, we all know that this state's kinda messed up on beer, too (and it ain't just the case law). Beer gets more attention.

That should do. Happy New Year, Pennsylvania!

Pocono Record has it right...

2009-12-28T16:11:00.001-05:00

Oh, yeah, brother: preach it:

...the wine kiosks smack more than a little of Big Brother. Without a live person monitoring wine purchases, consumers will face some pretty intrusive procedures before they can walk out of the supermarket with a bottle of cabernet to go with their steak au poivre.

The editorialist at the Pocono Record puts their finger right on the wine kiosk problem. When you buy a bottle of wine at a private store in New Jersey/New York/Delaware/Maryland/etc., that's all you buy: a bottle of wine, and you walk away. When you buy a bottle of wine from one of these Wine-O-Mats, you buy a lot more: you buy a breathalyzer test, you buy an ID scan linked to what you bought (and how much you bought), you buy the knowledge of how much wine you buy over a year, and -- at least, according to the head of the PLCB's employees' union -- you buy an etched code on the bottle that links it to you...and all of that goes on your permanent record.

Is that what you want from your government? Big Brother literally looking out at you from some ridiculous wine-vending machine, sniffing your breath and taking your picture just so you can get a bottle of Yellow Tail (because I'm sure there will be Yellow Tail in these things, they've got a whole section of their own in the stores)? I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the Patriot Act, but at least I can understand why the government might want to listen on phone lines to pick up terrorist activity...why the hell do they want to keep a record of which bottle of wine I bought? What damned business is it of theirs?

It might be time to throw some bottles of wine in the Philadelphia harbor...

"How to Avoid Selling Wine in Pennsylvania"

2009-12-21T12:43:00.000-05:00

Nicely done piece on the "wine kiosks" at Vinography; go have a look.

Here's how it starts:

So if you had a bunch of grocery stores, and those grocery stores sold wine, but you didn't really want people to buy any wine, what would you do?

One of the things you might consider doing would be to lock all the wine away in cabinets, so that people couldn't touch the bottles.

And it goes on in that vein, brilliantly. Seriously, folks, as the commenters to the post say: why aren't Pennsylvanians more insulted by this?

17% expansion in number of State Stores in 2010!

2009-12-19T13:05:00.001-05:00

The PLCB is planning to expand the number of State Stores from 620-ish to over 700 in 2010!

Holy crap! Really?

No, not really. It's that stupid wine kiosk idea again, and it's almost here, despite its obvious stupidity and iffy ethical status of the contract (not that "iffy ethics" should surprise anyone in this context). And according to the PLCB...each one is a Store.

"What we are proposing is a wine kiosk. This counts as a wine and spirits store. It will be within the store. There will be 100 of them around the state. They will have some of our most popular wines," said Nick Hays, PLCB spokesman.

So...what about all the worry that "more outlets means more problem drinking"? Well, once again, that only applies to a projected increase in privatized stores, not when it's the good old PLCB. Are you surprised?

Wine kiosks. God help us.

Conti & Stapleton on PCN again...

2009-12-10T10:40:00.000-05:00

Sorry I missed this one: Joe "CEO" Conti and PLCB chairman PJ Stapleton were on PCN's call-in show again on Monday (thanks to the readers who sent me the link!). Check it here for now; go to the PCN Call-in. I'm listening to it now.

Bill to Abolish State Liquor Stores to be Introduced in January!

2009-12-10T08:43:00.000-05:00

Holy crap! Can you believe it? Just saw this today, and my head exploded.

Lawmakers are introducing a new measure aimed at getting the state out of the booze business.

Senate Democrat Tim Sheldon is proposing the state privatize liquor sales. "Immediately, you would save the $53 million or so that it costs to operate state run liquor stores with state employees. This is a luxury that we can't afford in our state."
Sheldon said the system can be set up just like in other states that allow liquor sales in grocery and convenience stores.
The liquor control board would continue its enforcement efforts. "It could be done in a very safe, controlled way using the private sector outlets. The taxation would still be collected by the state, the regulation would be made by the state," said Sheldon.
The proposal will get its first vetting when lawmakers return to Olympia in January.

Wait, what? Olympia? Oh, bummer. This is about privatizing the state liquor stores in Washington. Damn.

Doesn't Pennsylvania have one legislator like Tim Sheldon? No, instead, what we get are guys like Representative Neal Goodman (D-123, Schuylkill County, pictured to the left), who recently said in the Pottsville Republican-Herald when asked about the prospect for beer sales in grocery/convenience stores and gas stations: "This is something the LCB (Liquor Control Board) would have to drive. I don't think this would be something legislatively-driven. This is a debate I'm willing to have ... but it really needs to be thought out thoroughly."

See...no. That's why I really worry about the caliber of legislator in this state. This is not something the LCB "would have to drive." The PLCB has already done a lot towards allowing this kind of thing; they've granted licenses in a surprisingly liberal manner to Wegmans, Giant Eagle, Sheetz, and others. This is one area where I've got nothing but praise for the PLCB. They've been ready for years, and they're pretty clear about it:

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board said groceries and convenience stores could have offered beer decades ago.

"The market changed. The law has not," said Nick Hays, a spokesman for the PLCB."The Pennsylvania liquor code does not address whether supermarkets may or may not sell alcohol. It doesn't permit them; it doesn't not permit them."

Hays is right: it's the code. Which, Representative Goodman's limited knowledge -- or deliberate obfuscation -- to the contrary, is something that has to be changed by the Legislature.

There's no need to bury it in a committee for thinking it out thoroughly, either (like they did with that "sixpack law" we were supposed to get two years ago). We've thought it out thoroughly, time and time again, and then nothing gets done. Which has nothing to do with the "thought out thoroughly" part, except the bits that deal with the political calculus. Your legislators want to please you, but mostly they don't want to piss off industry groups like the tavern owners or the beer wholesalers. The whole purpose of this blog is to change that equation.

Readers...if you're an interested citizen, write your legislator. It's easy, go do it (type your ZIP code in the box, and you'll get e-mail contact to Da Gov and your state legislators). If you're a reporter, please, please, please, take my ideas, take my passion, steal it with no attribution, but use it. Hammer at this ridiculous system, at the convoluted crap of The Almighty Liquor Code, at the entrenched stalinist edifice of the State Store System, at the arrogant monopolist attitude of Joe "CEO" Conti, at the wasteful and questionable spending on the Courtesy Contract and the Great Table Leaf Re-Branding.

Because the time is as ripe as it has ever been. Yuengling COO Dave Casinelli nailed it recently: "Ultimately, the consumers will speak," he said. "There's a groundswell out there. Both sides are kind of a stand-off right now." Damn straight. Why should Washington have all the fun?

First courtesy training, now this

2009-12-09T14:05:00.001-05:00

The PLCB, fresh from blowing millions of your tax dollars out of their butts* with the Courtesy Contract and the Great Table Leaf Re-Branding, is now going to spend even more money...training PA police officers how to use Facebook.

It's not that simple -- it never is -- but it's close. As you probably know, underaged drinkers are often dumb enough to post their drunking (intentional misspelling) pix on social networking sites. Hell, everyone knows it, and has known it, as this story about it from 2006 shows. The Bensalem PD is already using it for their own horny purposes. But that's not going to stop the PLCB from spending more bux to jump on this.

Here's the syllabus for the 8 hour course:

According to Leslie Coombe, director of the Liquor Control Board's Bureau of Alcohol Education, the Navigating Cyberspace training will cover:

•Social networking sites and how young people use them;
•What distinguishes social networking sites from one another;
•How to navigate social networking sites; and
•How to develop information from social networking sites into evidence.

So that would be:

Facebook, MySpace, craigslist, Twitter -- Farmville; pix of chix and crappy music; all beer u can drunkk $5 dude; LOL RT LOL!
Your mom's on FB too, MySpace looks like a cat threw it up, craigslist is about the bux, Twitter s shrt lol.
Create a false identity. Login. Start friending/following like mad; lie when necessary. Click on links. Txt. Google site for "beers" "crunk" and "funnel". Call it a day, go get a beer.
Lie to some kid about who you are, get an invite to a party. Show up with the squad, arrest all the kids you can catch, bust the owners of the house, too.
And one more thing: Entrapment Is Something That Happens to Other Cops.

Hey, officer, just kidding about that last one, really. But I'd love to see what the folks at the Chambersburg Public Opinion would have done with this one. We're sending police officers to school for a day to learn how to Facebook? Are you kidding? My mechanic told me his small-town PD has a cyber-enforcement unit. Cops are up to speed already, and if they aren't, a one-day course ain't gonna do it. God, this reminds me of the narc convention in Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas.

I did say it wasn't quite as simple as the others, and here's another reason. The money comes from a grant...from the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, the "business association" of control states' liquor monopolies. Where does their money come from? To tell the truth, I don't know (I do now; see below). Google has, for now, failed me. But I do have a call in to them, asking that very question, and I'm hoping for an answer (because I'm writing a piece about this, too). But if NABCA is funded by the control states' booze agencies...guess what that means? Give you a hint: those aren't monkeys flying out of your butt.

Update: I did get back with the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, and it turns out that they get only a small amount of money from the states, less than a third of their operating budget. Most of their funds come from selling reports to investment analysis firms, the booze industry, and importers/wholesalers; they have solid, gilt-edged data from the states (it's every sale from every store in the state, as opposed to the patchwork reports from private-sale states), and it's valuable. Good idea, actually. So...no fear, the PLCB's wasting someone else's money this time. Whew.

*Paraphrasing a great line from one of my fave movies, "The Iron Giant," where Gen. Rogard says "You realize how much hardware I brought out here? You just blew millions of Uncle Sam's dollars out of your butt!" I know just how he feels...and yeah, Joe "CEO" Conti, it was our tax dollars, because if you hadn't wasted it on this project, it would have gone into the general fund, where it would have become fungible revenue. PLCB revenue wasted is the same as taxes to cover the hole.

You gotta see this

2009-12-04T13:04:00.000-05:00

Just go here and look at the picture and caption. Well worth your time, but be prepared to laugh out loud. Gotta love irony.

First, Do No Harm

2009-12-04T10:23:00.001-05:00

Can you see those beer neons? Victory, Smithwick's, and a very rare Weyerbacher neon? I apologize for the quality of the iPhone shot, but it's all I had with me.

Why'd I take this picture? Because you're looking at a gas station that's selling beer in bottles, cans, and growlers...in Pennsylvania. It's the Interstate Market, just south of I-78 at Easton, and very much on the PA side of the Delaware River. And right under the big sign advertising the fuel prices was a sign that read "On tap today: Sierra Nevada."

I felt very much "out of control." How was this possible? More to the point, why does the MBDA have its panties in a terrible knot over Sheetz stores selling beer while not a word of protest accompanies this madness of selling beer right where people buy gasoline! Amazing. Cynically, I suggest it's because this one store represents no real threat to business, and the MBDA's cries over exposing children and driving dangers are simply bullshit, covering their real concern: Sheetz can offer bottleshop convenience in a lot of places. I would suggest that the MBDA would be much better off spending their time and money lobbying for a sixpack sale law for distributors.

Anyway, things were strangely peaceful. I didn't see one person sucking on a bottle of irresistably nearby and cold beer while they gassed up their car. No one peeled out of the place waving an open bottle out the window. There weren't raving crowds inside the store demanding beer, cold beer, open bottles of it right now!!!

No, what there was...was some people having lunch (sit-down tables), and some people buying sodas, and five nice taps and empty growlers waiting to be filled. Peaceful. Restrained.

Where's the threat? What's the big deal about selling beer at gas stations?

God Almighty only asked for ten...

2009-12-01T13:07:00.003-05:00

Saw this over at City Paper; Drew Lazor's on the job. Ultimo Coffee/Brew bistro has opened their doors -- back in May -- but while their coffee has been nothing short of frackin' amazing (See? Was it really that hard?), there's still no beer in their big, beautiful coolers. How come? That would be the PLCB.

See, much as apparently almost everyone in the area (and this one fella, out here in Bucks) would love for that great beer to show up, one guy is holding things up by saying he doesn't want their license approved. According to The Almighty Liquor Code (Section 4-402), if anyone within 500 feet of the place objects within 15 days of the application, there has to be a hearing. Now, said 'one guy' apparently lives over 600 feet away, but remember the prologue of The Almighty Liquor Code:

This act shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of
this purpose.

So there you are. Although, as alluded to in the post title, God required Abraham to find 10 righteous men in Sodom; the PLCB is willing to hold things up for just one? And where does it say that setting up the hearing has to take six months?

The hearing will finally take place on December 11, and the 'one guy' (no relation to Berwick Brewing, née One Guy Brewing, of course) will get an opportunity to stand up and state just why it is that they object to the license. Assuming they show up...I'd love to hear what their beef is, and I'd really like to see if it's worth one person having held up a the business of a person who has demonstrably improved the Newbold neighborhood. Or if it's just hot air. Not that I'm pre-judging, or anything.