So where did the clamoring go?

One Stop Shops - Wine Kiosks with people.

As I pointed out in the previous blog post the PLCB said that grocery stores were clamoring to get state stores inside their premises.  That was August of 2003.  Jump forward a little over a year and a half to May 2005 and the PLCB says that there have been 16 approvals for a store within a store or what they call a One Stop Shop. 16 seems like a great improvement over the "6 or 7" that the Chairman mentioned in 2003. At that rate one would expect there would be well over 100 by now.

Well, unless I miscounted there are 15 One Stop Shops listed by the PLCB a decrease of 1 over the last 9 years.  So it appears that the clamoring has stopped once stores found out what it is like to have the PLCB crawling around inside them. Of course, ever being on top of things, President For Life DADA Wendell Young IV said just a few days ago  "...we welcome the effort to open more stores inside of or next to grocery stores." Which must be code for next to grocery stores because it is obvious the grocery stores don't want them.

Maybe those 400 sqft stores in a store that Wendell endorsed as part of "modernization" will catch on and store total will skyrocket from the 600 now to 607 or 608 which would still only be 150 or so less then there used to be. Or maybe the legislature will get a clue and realize the PLCB does nothing even remotely as well as private industry (except maybe P.O. the consumer, they excel at that) and get out the booze business. Can we really trust them to do anything for the consumer given the 60 years of past history of doing everything possible to stay in the 1950's only moving forward at the threat of their existence?

The more things change, the more things PLCB

Moving at the speed of the PLCB

Eleven years ago (August 2003) the Chairman said that "Supermarket owners are clamoring to put state-owned liquor stores within their walls" Back then the PLCB wanted 2-3,000 sqft for their "store in a store" Now the latest version of "modernization" is down to 400sqft -  or under 2 aisles worth which is less than the store would offer if the system were privatized.
The store in a store concept had been around for over 20 years even by 2003 so how much clamoring has happened?  Of the over 5,000 grocery stores in the state, only 15 have a state store in them about the same number that had the failed wine kiosks. I think ignoring might be the correct word not clamoring.

He also said that state stores should be open until 11 which is something the PLCB can do without any legislative approval. So far it hasn't happened but hey, it has only been 11 years and we are talking about the PLCB - you know those same people who say they are consumer driven.  Maybe they meant driven to New Jersey or Delaware to get real service and selection since he knows "...the state store system has made it inconvenient to buy spirits."

Just a blast from the past that shows how well "modernization" has been going.

Is the PLCB on the ropes?

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.

You gotta see this

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