More New State Stores (that are not near grocery stores)

Greetings, PLCB real estate specialist. Your mission is to find, have built or renovate, 4,500 square feet of retail space within walking distance of a grocery store. You have at least a dozen grocery stores in the area and three years to accomplish your mission. If you fail, the PLCB will deny any knowledge of your existence, your mission, and any money spent on it.

As an addendum to my post of the 26th, and a prime example of why "modernization" is going to turn out to be just another raft of lies, here's a bit more proof that the PLCB may not want to do -- or get done -- what they say they want to do. In 2011 the State Store at Crestview Drive in Lebanon closed. Now, over THREE YEARS LATER, the PLCB is going to open a new store in the Kmart shopping center at 1745 Quentin Road, supposedly in September of this year right between a hairdresser and a Dollar General. Given the PLCB's stated "modernization" goal (which the Democratic (and pro-PLCB quasi-Republican) legislators wave as an alternative to privatization) of locating more stores in or near grocery stores, that sounds great, right?

Well, guess what: there isn't a grocery store in the Kmart shopping center. While Kmart does carry food, it isn't a full-fledged grocery store, like the Weis, Giant, Aldi or Foodland (the nearest, in a different plaza across the street), all of which are in nearby shopping centers. Maybe the Dollar General store next door fits the PLCB idea of a grocery store? Or is it that Foodland being across a busy street in another plaza is the PLCB's idea of "one-stop shopping"?

Remember, this is after having over 3 years to do what they say they want to do. It's not like it snuck up on them. So you have to ask....do they really give a damn about consumer convenience, or are they just giving lip service? Then ask yourself why it even took three years to replace the store that closed? Would a private retailer ignore customers for that long? Of course not, but a monopoly can because they know the customers aren't allowed to and can't go anywhere else. That is what they call world class service.

It seems to be another fine example of the PLCB not doing what they say they want to do. But at least we do know what floor polish will be on the floors.

Wendell Young still lies and I can prove it Part 3

Trust me; it's all true, even the lies.

On the 25th of June, UFCW Local 1776 President-For-Life Wendell W. Young IV sent out another press release. In this new bit of fallacy, he again says that 5,000 PLCB jobs are at stake. Wendell, Wendell, Wendell...he's lying again!

To start with there aren't 5,000 PLCB employees, according the State. But don't take my word for it; unlike Wendell, I can back it up. Just click here,  then pick Employees and then Employee Count by Agency. Could it be that Wendell is talking about some no-show jobs somewhere where people get paid but aren't really there? No, wait, we're talking about the PLCB; that's kind of a given. Even if there were 5,000 jobs at the PLCB, they wouldn't ALL be at stake, because there would still be the stuff a normal state liquor agency does: regulation and licensing and possibly audits of liquor stores, and something that isn't done in PA today....age checks in liquor stores. Maybe the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement (currently an embarrassing arm of the State Police) would even go back into the PLCB, since there wouldn't be the conflict of interest that caused them to be created in the first place.

Mr. Young goes on to talk about the PFM report from October of 2011; an evaluation of privatization that was drawn up on a completely different plan, but that little fact doesn't stop him. He goes into turbo-spin mode, his second favorite thing to do after lying talking (and getting haircuts). 'The Governor's own report says it will cost $1.4 Billion to wind down the PLCB over 4 years,' he cries. At least that isn't a lie -- the report did say that -- but he also doesn't tell you that it will cost over $2 Billion to keep the PLCB running for those same 4 years, using the same PFM numbers. How does he keep from getting dizzy?

Mr. Young commented on Rep. Gene DiGirolamo's plan that would create more stores inside of or adjacent to grocery stores; and allowing for more flexibility in pricing. All well and good except the PLCB has had the power to put stores in grocery stores or near grocery stores...

FOR AT LEAST 40 FRICKIN' YEARS!! 

Guess what?  The grocery stores don't want 'em, anymore than they wanted the Incredible Robot Army of Wine Kiosks, or else there would likely be more than 16 in the entire state 33 years after the first store in a store was done. I'm not even sure the PLCB really wants to do it, since the requirements for the new Washington County store lists 33 pages of what the DGS/PLCB wants...but has not one line about locating near a grocery store (although it does specify what floor polish is to be used before the PLCB moves in).

Then Wendell blabbers about 'alternative pricing strategies' to 'modernize' the State Stores. Been there, muffed that! Almost 30 years ago, in 1985, the PLCB was tasked with developing alternative pricing strategies that fit within the liquor code. This was done but never implemented, and here we are in 2014, hearing that as part of "modernization," they want to develop alternate pricing strategies. What the hell have they been doing for the past 29 years? If my business was this incompetent, I would be working in a liquor store, not wanting to buy a liquor store.

You keep talking, Wendell, and I'll keep writing.  Deal?

When Theory Doesn't Match Reality - Who Do You Believe?

Today we are going to look at some of the...um, what should I call it -- lies that the pro State Store community uses to try to show that science is on their side.

Remember things like Wendell Young telling us that privatization "...will put alcohol on every street corner and increase crime." (Watchdog.org May 2, 2013). Sounds pretty scary, but Pennsylvania alcohol consumption per capita is already about the same as New York, Ohio, and Maryland, higher than West Virginia and a little lower than New Jersey; Delaware is the highest.  In fact, PA consumption hasn't really changed that much over the years and is slightly higher now than in 1900. (NIAAA Surveillance Report #92 August 2011) Besides being a physical impossibility -- every corner? Really? Where do you put the gas stations and the Starbucks? -- there are local laws that would prevent it too. Still reality has never stopped Wendell before. Do we really need to talk about crime?  PA is dead in the middle for violent crime compared to the border states or the rest of the states for that matter, so it isn't like this is Eden to start with. (FBI UCR report 2012). If we are just average with all this supposed "control," why are all those other states doing better?

Wendell uses this made-up science again and again, but no one ever calls him on it: "The bottom line is we have the absolute lowest death rate associated with alcohol consumption of all 50 states."  Which I disproved not that long ago, so would some debater please call him out on it?

My favorite has to be that consumption will rise 48%.  We heard this in testimony from Dr. Stephen Herzenberg of Keystone Research.  All that effort only to be slammed for using bad science and then for having the gall to not follow his predictions.  It seems that Washington state consumption has only gone up about 9% when you include the increase in in-state sales and the increase in border bleed.  Gotta wonder where that other 39% went to.

Then there is organized labor's tame economist, Dr. Roland Zullo of the University of Michigan, who while working with the Keystone Research Center said that crime is lower in control states, which makes it hard to explain why PA is in the middle of the pack on crime, while being the most onerous control state. I wonder what his reasoning is that DUI fatalities (usually known as the felony of vehicular homicide) went down in Washington state since they privatized.

Both of the above declined to provide any new thoughts on this subject and didn't respond to my emails. Perhaps that was shrewd on their part in light of the fact they have been proven wrong.

Can't forget Dr. Mark Price, also of the Keystone Research Center (I'm beginning to see a pattern here), who agreed with Dr. Herzenberg by using the exact same bad science Dr Herzenberg used in his testimony. His bottom line was that "...privatization will increase negative social impacts, increasing excessive consumption of alcohol (hasn't happened) and traffic fatalities (they went down), alcohol-related violent crime (hasn't happened), and alcohol-related public health problems (the jury is still out on this since only preliminary date is available and mostly only for King County in Washington)

Now Oregon is next up for privatization by the ballot (which would have happened here decades ago if allowed) and their prohibitionists are  coming up with new science to further their cause. However, once again reality doesn't agree with the Power Point presentation (What?  You were expecting peer reviewed journals?) as the respected Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University pointed out.

They say the truth shall set you free so it seems you can pretty much ignore anything from the UFCW, Keystone Reasearch, or Wendel Young. whose only goal is to keep you enslaved to the state store system.

Abolish the PLCB Q & A

To celebrate somewhat of a small milestone - my 50th story posted here I've decided to open up the blog to hear what you want. I've been writing about and answering the questions that I get from my reading, tips or tidbits of info from unhappy PLCB employees, inspiration from UFCW officials (and some not so official), and the regular citizens like you. These are things that I wanted answered or at least thought about but now it is your turn fellow privateers (or even the other side -- the Control Freaks and the prohibitionists) to ask me something about the PLCB you want answered. I can't say I'll have the answer you want or even an answer but I'll try.

Want to know how many stores are open? I'll go into the whole spiel about how many stores the PLCB says it has vs. how many are actually open vs. how many can citizens go to and not just licensees. Want to know how many stores turn a profit?  It is far less that you would think. Got a favorite bottle you want a better price on I'll compare PA to what I find.

Your turn, your voice, your questions.

As always, all questions/comments will be published (yes, even the Anonymous ones) so long as they are:

• relevant (don't tear off into rants on politics, or the lottery, and so on)
• civil: no personal attacks, and please keep the profanity to a minimum
• one round; don't keep asking the same question

Wendell Young lies and I can prove it Part 2

This will be a continuing series exposing the lies from Mr. Young until the state is privatized or he stops talking, whichever comes first.

Today we have Mr. Young from the PCN call in show of February 19th, 2013 (It could be any show, really, because he just keeps saying the same things). At 28:23 into the show he says: "The bottom line is we have the absolute lowest death rate associated with alcohol consumption of all 50 states."

Nice, except the CDC doesn't agree with him.  Using the numbers from their 2006-2010 study on Alcohol-Attributable Deaths due to excessive alcohol consumption we find that PA only beats two of the six border states, the control state of West Virginia and the quasi control state of Ohio.  All the privately run border states do better.

Perhaps Mr. Young meant PA does better than all 50 states when all alcohol consumption is taken into account, not just excessive consumption? That isn't true either, PA again only beats West Virginia and by less than 2 tenths of 1 percent beats Ohio.

For those of you who don't wish to crunch the numbers I've done it for you.  Population figures are 2010 census data. The key point to look at is for "Citizens per death," the bigger the number, the better the state's citizens are doing. (click on it to see the whole spreadsheet)

Of course, this doesn't include the DUI fatality rate which is higher in PA than 4 of the 6 border states. I would think that those would be associated with alcohol consumption too.

It's not just lies about safety. In this same program, he says there are 40,000 items available through the PLCB, then a year later (as I documented in Wendell Young lies and I can prove it Part 1), he says there are 30,000 items.  Here he says that the smallest stores carry 1,000 items and....you guessed it, says a different number (1,500-3000)  in the linked story later on. He can't even keep his lies straight.

I've been told that if you lie, it is important to keep your lies straight, or else they can come back and bite you in the -- er, trip you up when you least expect it.

Right Wendell?

Lets Kill Another Privatization Myth IV

With all this "control", why isn't PA safer?

Converting PA to a private system will put a liquor store on every corner, have drunk drivers roaming the streets looking for victims and packs of wild drunken teens will trod over the desolate landscape. How do we know this?  The state store clerks union tells us in letters to the editor, on-line comments and even senior officials spouting it as gospel.

The truth is none of that has happened in Washington State.  Clerk representatives like to say that Washington State DUI citation data can't be believed because there were less troopers on the road to write tickets.  Never mind that local police write the most tickets since there are thousands more of them than State Police. Or they say that DUI fatalities are going down everywhere which to me means that their dire predictions didn't come about since Washington State did see a decline in DUI fatalities. However, the amount of troopers on the road has little to do with DUI fatalities. People do not die and then try to hide the fact like they do with crashes.

2013 national data has not been released yet so we have to look at 2012 data.  In 2012 17 states reported a decrease in DUI fatalities.  Pa was not one of them.  Pennsylvania's DUI fatalities increased 2,8% overall compared to 2011 and went up over 15% for under 21 drivers while Washington DUI fatalities decreased 7.6% overall and over 30% for under 21 drivers. Now an official representative of the UFCW has said that this represents "statistically insignificant numbers" so I have to wonder how many deaths it takes to be significant (statistically speaking) for him?

It is all because of beer the clerks say but beer is also private in Washington and since they had and continue to have the highest liquor taxes in the country that makes beer the choice for those on a budget....like teens. So since the PLCB is in charge of "control" via inspections, complaints, beer registration, and numerous other ways - are they not doing as good a job as the WSLCB? Would they do better if they only had to concentrate on regulation and not retail.  One would hope.

Statewide statistics are not yet available for Pennsylvania for 2013 but they just came out for Washington and the data shows that alcohol impaired driver fatalities have gone down again, this time over 18% for the year. For the past 24 months, 18 of them since privatization, Washington State has decreased DUI fatalities by over 25% and PA has not.

Wake up Legislators.  The PLCB is not the only, nor has it ever been, the best way to do things.

Privatization Is REAL Modernization.

Any of this sound familiar?

Has it been 30 years already?

In 1985 it was recommended that the PLCB implement a paperless licensee image filing system, in 1992 the PLCB said it was in the process of doing so. In 2014, 30 years later, the process isn't finished yet: every store has paper files for the licensees that regularly use them.

In 1985 the PLCB was tasked with developing alternative pricing strategies that fit within the liquor code. This was done but never implemented, and here we are in 2014 hearing that as part of "modernization," they want to develop alternate pricing strategies.

Again in 1985 the PLCB was told to "Improve marketing of PLCB products by responding to customer demand and properly handling wine and spirits." In 1992 the PLCB said that "Store customers were surveyed and customer service training for store personnel has been enhanced." I'm not sure I believe that.

This one is too funny to be anything but true coming from the PLCB.  In 1985 they were asked to "Establish accepted business practices for commercial licensees e.g. credit privileges and product delivery." Now they did eventually let licensees pay with credit cards, but said "The delivery option was tested but not implemented due to lack of interest." They must mean the PLCB's lack of interest since you won't find a bar or restaurant that doesn't want liquor delivery.

You might have thought that TableLeaf and the others were new ideas thought up, as Joe Conti lied about, because there was a glut of California wine. But in the late 80's the PLCB established a wine advisory panel to help with its private label wine program.

After it was recommended that the PLCB "Eliminate the requirement that permanent part-time employees be certified by the Civil Sevice Commission," the PLCB said they were working to improve the process. 30 years later, they are still working on it.

If anybody tells you what a great job our state system does just remind them that: The PLCB -- through the spun-off enforcement arm called the BLCE (Bureau of Liquor Code Enforcement) -- isn't doing their job. Between 1989 and 1992 there were 300 arrests for bringing in untaxed liquor from out of state. Last year there were two and this year just one so far out of literally millions if not 10's of millions of violations.

All of the above was taken from the May 1992 Legislative Budget and Finance Committee performance audit of the 1985 Audit recommendations. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Seriously? This is the agency that wants us to believe that this time they really really are going to do what they said they would. Just trust them this time.

I got a better idea: privatize.