Why the PLCB should follow the law, not "interpret" it

If the PLCB were a private citizen, it would most likely be in jail. It does things that the people — through their representatives in the legislature — never approved. It willingly and repeatedly violates the law, and consistently goes against one of the very foundations of English and American law: "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed." Also stated as "no crime without law," this is an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen. The PLCB, on the other hand, seems to work on the opposite idea, that "all that is not expressly permitted is forbidden." Sorta like North Korea.

Are they making broad interpretations of the laws for the benefit of the citizens? Good intentions are not an excuse for breaking the law. Never have been. The laws are for everybody, they don't say "except for when the PLCB wants to save us from ourselves" anywhere.  Let's take a look at some of the legal and common sense violations they are a party to.

Just this past week Giovanni's Pizza & Pasta, in Dormont, PA was trying to comply with all the written legal requirements so that they could deliver wine. But the PLCB isn't interested in just the legal requirements; their requirements have to be met as well. What are those requirements? They won't say. "That's a matter that is under review for consideration by our attorneys and our board. There's nothing in Act 39 that says it's illegal, but Act 39 did impose certain conditions that need to be met. We don't have a determination on that matter yet." - Elizabeth Brassell, director of communications for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (emphasis added).

I'm sure we all remember the magic 12 pack case where they "interpreted" that a "case or original container" could mean a 12-pack, even though a case had been a case (and an "original container" had been ONE original container, not a pack of  12 of them) for as long as anyone could remember. How many times in the past 80 years had they refused to consider that?  More than we will ever know.

Why was the new interpretation suddenly different? No one knows. Of course there are the infamous Wine Kiosks that were never checked to see if they complied with federal law, The PLCB just didn't bother and really didn't seem to care in that case. Even after they were called out on it they still didn't check.

While moot now, state law did say that only 25% of State Stores could be open on Sunday. Since they don't care what the law says, the PLCB was about 18 stores over the limit when Act 39 took place, allowing more stores to open. They obviously didn't care about a legal limit that was written to apply specifically to them!

How about the ever-changing beer at gas stations gymnastics? "You can't sell beer at the same location where you sell gas, period, that's the law! Well, unless the property is actually next door. Oh, and they can't have an interior connection...unless we say it's OK, in which case, that's fine, for that one licensee, not for anyone else."

That's contrary to what the Liquor Code explicitly says: "No license shall be transferred to any place or property upon which is located as a business the sale of liquid fuels and oil." But according to the PLCB, if you have a business that sells gas and you build another store next to it, and then attach them together (and they are owned by the same company), it isn't a continuation of the original gas selling business. If not, then why do they have an interior connection? Common sense was never a PLCB strong point.

One of my favorites in the "Do as I say not as I do" category is that a licensee of one class can't provide anything of value to another class of licensee. So as a distributor you couldn't help a restaurant with how to display their beer selection for example. However, the PLCB has outside representatives that come in all the time to set up advertising displays in their stores, and hires outside companies to do the sets* in the stores too. But then there are no requirements for State Stores either. We shouldn't expect them to know how to stock shelves and sell things - should we?

Maybe if the PLCB just regulated and didn't run a half-assed retail booze monopoly, they would be able to do at least one thing well. I doubt it, but I'd like to find out.

Privatize.


* A 'set' is where every bottle goes and in what order they should be on the shelves. These are the people that decided to not have the 1.5L sizes next to the standard 750ML sizes of the same wine but to group all the 1.5L bottles together.  The same ones that destroyed the standard "top shelf" setup that liquor had been using for almost 100 years.  Of course, no place except PA state stores do this.

BEER IN GAS STATIONS!!! No, it's not, and Wolf had nothing to do with it

Everyone's losing their minds because Pennsylvania gas stations can now sell beer, and Governor Wolf made it happen. We saw headlines like this (exclamations added..):

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Approves 6-Pack Sales At Gas Stations!
Pa. Liquor Control Board allows gas stations to sell 6-packs!
Gas and brews: Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board approves beer sales at gas stations!
Pennsylvania Finally Catches Up With The Rest Of America, Legalizes Selling Six-Packs Of Beer At Gas Stations!

No, no, and no. Gas stations near you probably still won't be selling beer (without jumping through ridiculous hoops first) and Governor Wolf had nothing to do with it. It's just one more chunk of pathetic bullshit from Harrisburg, designed to dazzle and placate you and keep your mind off how crappy the booze sales system in this state is. Allow me to explain.

First? This is about nine gas stations in the entire state which bought existing licenses (of various types; that's explained quite well here if you're interested) -- like the supermarkets that are "allowed" to sell beer 12 bottles at a time -- and just wanted to have those licenses approved...because, of course, the Almighty Liquor Code actually "prohibits the sale of liquid fuels or oil by licensees."

Just add beer...sorry, not allowed in Pennsylvania!

So that means that the Board is once again ignoring the law ("The board shall refuse any application for a new license, the transfer of any license to a new location or the extension of any license to cover an additional area where the sale of liquid fuels or oil is conducted"), just like it did last year when it said a 12-pack is a case. ("No distributor or importing distributor shall sell any malt or brewed beverages in quantities of less than a case or original containers containing one hundred twenty-eight ounces or more").

Now, I'm all in favor of ignoring the Almighty Liquor Code myself; I do it all the time by running to NJ for booze. But it's one thing when I do it; it's completely something else when the state regulatory agency in charge of enforcing and interpreting The Almighty Liquor Code is doing it. This kind of arbitrary decision leads to madness and badness.

What kind of badness? Realize this: every time one of these gas stations buys a license, that's a bar license (R license, "deli" license, or a straight-up D distributor license; they're buying whatever they can get their hands on) that's out of circulation for years, not being used as intended. Ordinarily, I'd say, who cares? But this is Pennsylvania, where the number of bar licenses is limited by population: 1 license per 3,000 people per county. Then realize that bar and deli licenses, unlike every other kind of license, can be bought and sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear, and you see that every gas station and supermarket that buys a license makes the price of other licenses higher. And that means fewer start-up bars, more chain restaurants, and more high-end expensive bars...and more bars that are likely to try to sell as much booze as possible to make that monthly payment on the license. Not good. I wrote about that here. What else? Well, how about...the Board can easily play favorites, because they can decide the next batch of applications don't get approved, and they don't have to give any reason, nor are they bound by precedent...because that's how the PLCB works. Every ruling stands on its own. Period.

It would be much better to have a new license for retail beer sales, without the stupid 12-pack restrictions and separate register foolishness, than to continue to do this workaround. But that would require the Legislature to do something, and that would upset the tavern owners AND the beer distributors...even more than this is.

To my pleased surprise, the decision also was not well-received by the Brewers of Pennsylvania, who responded -- correctly!-- that "To truly “free the six-pack” as Governor Wolf requested from the PLCB, then the future call to action must be to allow six-packs to be sold in many more businesses than just gas stations... To truly achieve consumer convenience as well as provide for a variety of purchasing options for consumers, the BOP highly recommends allowing six-pack sales in all channels of trade. Doing so would immediately benefit all small craft beer producers in Pennsylvania..." BOP president Bill Covaleski (of Victory Brewing) told me "the consumer is at the forefront of our thinking. We are headed in the direction of the consumer, we need them to tell us where that is." He noted that "where that is" clearly seemed to be in every grocery store and convenience store. It's refreshing to see that the brewers get what the Legislature doesn't: the consumers should be considered first, not the special interest groups.

Second? Once again, this is about nine gas stations in the entire state. It does NOT mean "gas stations can sell sixpacks." You won't be seeing beer at every Wawa anytime soon, especially not in southeast Pennsylvania, because bar licenses are really freakin' expensive here; like around $400,000 in Montgomery County. So why is everyone so excited? Because Governor Wolf made a big deal about this.

Yay me! I wroted a letter!

Third? What does Governor Wolf have to do with it? Nothing but shameless self-promotion, that's what. Wolf heard that the PLCB was about to vote on these applications, and like everyone else in Harrisburg, he knew the PLCB was likely to say yes. So he sent them a letter asking them to do that as a favor to his friends, the people of Pennsylvania, and then made a big stinking deal out of it when they approved the applications. As a friend of mine said, tomorrow Wolf will send out a press release predicting the sun's gonna rise in the east, and he'll be two for two!

Did anyone know Wolf was a big supporter of "free the six pack"? No, you didn't, because "Free the six pack" was just something Wolf hitched his wagon to the day before the PLCB was going to approve these piddling nine applications. He's an opportunistic fraud.

To recap: not much has changed; Wolf had nothing to do with it; and this is still a terrible way to change things. As I've said for years, the arbitrary nature of the PLCB and the byzantine impenetrability of the Almighty Liquor Code make for an ever-worsening situation here.

So when you don't see beer at your local gas station...remember this, will ya? And tell your legislators to Rewrite The Code, with you in mind, not the unions and the beer distributors and the tavern owners and the convenience stores and Pat Deon. It's the only way we'll ever change this.

Beer in Supermarkets: the Down Side

Giant Market plans to sell beer at their Stone Mill Plaza store in Lancaster County!

Weis Market opens beer cafe in Mechanicsburg!

Yeah, really, beer in Da Grocery Store in Da Commonwealth!!!!

Is this great? Or is it pathetic?

I asked that question seven years ago, when I first bought a beer at a Pennsylvania supermarket. It's high time that the question was asked again, because things are accelerating. We're seeing more and more big supermarkets adding "beer cafes" and selling sixpacks, and there are going to be consequences; we need to look ahead at what may happen and consider action to head it off.

It's a simple problem. It's great that Pennsylvania supermarkets have figured out a way to sell beer, a workaround that involves sacrificing part of their building to create a "cafe" where people could have a beer if they really wanted to (but mostly don't, with a few cool exceptions where the idea's been embraced) and buying a tavern license, which can be wicked expensive (check by county; hello, Chester!). But clearly the big chain supermarkets -- Giant, Wegmans, Weis, Whole Foods, Giant Eagle -- have found that the profit is worth the cost, because it seems like a month doesn't go by without another opening.

Why is that a problem? A few things. First, Pennsylvania has a "quota system" for liquor licenses: one per 3,000 people in a county. It's essentially a broken system, as it's never really kept up with population shifts, and there are a ton of "grandfathered" licenses in counties that have lost population, and there are a number of exceptions (The Almighty Liquor Code has a silly number of kinds of licenses), but essentially, there are no new tavern licenses being issued. If you want a liquor license, you have to buy one on the open market, because the Legislature foolishly made them transferable and salable. I say "foolishly" because when a liquor license -- a piece of paper issued by the State with no intrinsic value except what the State-enforced "quota system" has given it -- is sold in Chester County, for instance, for $270,000, the State gets next to nothing. Even though the full value of that license only exists because of State law. Yeah, I call that foolish.

That's a problem, because every time a supermarket simply wants to sell beer, it buys up another of these limited licenses, which then become more scarce, and therefore more expensive if you want to buy one to open an actual bar, tavern, brewpub (you need a license to sell anything other than your own beer or Pennsylvania wines at a brewpub), or restaurant. As licenses get more expensive, you get more chain restaurants and fewer independent operators opening (because they don't have the deep pockets); you get more nuisance bars (because they have to sell more booze to make their loan payment), and you get more high-end places with expensive booze (which isn't bad in and of itself, but if the ratio is unbalanced, people have fewer choices).

Another part of the problem is that it creates two tiers of grocery stores: the ones with beer and the ones without. I recognize that some grocery stores don't want to sell beer; especially in rural Pennsylvania, where there are some family-owned places that simply don't hold with alcohol at all. Fine, no reason to force stores to sell beer, but there are stores that would like to and simply can't afford the ridiculous unnecessary expense of buying a tavern license and tying up a substantial amount of retail space and equipment in a "cafe" with separate beer cashiers.

This was brought up at the McIlhinney Hearings in 2013, by a representative from Redner's Warehouse Markets, and Senator McIlhinney's response was essentially 'that's nice, but that ain't gonna happen.' Since then, there have been attempts to come up with a separate license for grocery store sales (of course, another type of license is exactly what we need!), none of which went anywhere. Given the tenacious opposition of the beer distributors to any expansion of grocery store beer sales (and the likely opposition of the already-licensed groceries), I doubt this will fly, and...

That is going to mean we'll have this half-assed workaround forever. The stores that got a liquor license won't be happy with anything that devalues that major investment, so they'll be fighting it. And Pennsylvanians are pathetically grateful for anything that even looks like buying beer in grocery stores (and having a liquor license actually puts the stores one tiny step away from selling wine, as there's already been a push to allow taverns to sell "to-go" bottles of wine), so if we think we have it, we're not going to push for it; we're just going to go to the stores that sell beer. That means that more and more supermarkets are going to go after tavern licenses, which is going to accelerate the scarcity issue (more chains and more nuisance bars!), and put even more pressure on the family-owned supermarkets to sell or close.

Well, hello, unintended consequences!

More crappy nuisance bars. Friendly neighborhood bars will sell their licenses at top dollar while they can, and the families will retire. And we get further away from a REAL solution to the problem.

This is yet another fine mess the PLCB and the Legislature have gotten us into, with the help of the MBDA and the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of Bucks County beer mogul (and SEPTA Board and Turnpike Commission member; and did you know he also owns 4% of the Sands Casino?) Pat Deon. Please note that I do NOT blame the supermarkets; they're just playing the hand that was dealt to them, and playing it well.

The only solution to Pennsylvania's alcohol beverage sales quagmire is going to be an all-alcohol solution, some grand bargain that fixes everything. More on that to come.

Why is it that....

The PLCB advertises even though they have no competition. There is no such thing as shopping for the best price; there's only the PLCB price. And of course...forget about shopping for selection. If they don't have it, you don't need it. Or want it. You may think you do...but they think better.

The PLCB limits how many bars and restaurants can serve alcohol, and while very few places are under their quota, there isn't a quota for State Stores. We are nowhere near what a normal state would have for liquor stores (and normal for wine retailers is so far away we can't even see it from here). In fact, the number of State Stores has been steadily decreasing for the past 45 years from over 750 to the current 605, and has only held steady the past two years.

The PLCB has no paper trail that lists who came up with in-house brands, who made the decision to feature them on endcaps, who decided to push them in advertising, and who said to feature them as alternatives when doing searches on the website? Do they know what they are doing at all? (Does any of it have to do with the continuing trail of ethics violations?)

The PLCB never lists any proof for the sales increases "modernization" supposedly will bring. Tell us exactly how opening another 140 stores on Sunday will generate $22 million more in operating income, or how just opening stores quicker will add $25 million more? Tell us what states will join in the booze-buying consortium being proposed? Have they even been approached about it? (Wanna bet there's no paper trail?) Tell us how the PLCB will make $75 million more if allowed to set pricing? Who will decide what the pricing will be, what will the change be based on, who will have oversight, who will look out for the consumer's interest (it never has been the folks in Harrisburg so don't expect them to suddenly start now),

The PLCB hasn't said whether a six-bottle container of 750ml bottles of Belgian Trappist brew will be a "case" too under their new "interpretation." It is over 144 ounces after all.  What about 6 bottles of beer that are only available in 700 ml bottles? Will there be a special "interpretation" for those if somebody decides to sue and the PLCB is too lazy to support their 80 years of apparently wrong "interpretation" like what happened in the latest "interpretation" that allowed 12 packs? And why can't the Legislature get off its butt and just do away with the case law entirely?

The PLCB ranks 15th worst out of 17 control states for binge drinking rates and is in the bottom half of all states, tied for 31st place. Why? Because "control states" like PA don't really control anything. The total alcohol use for control states averages higher (2.46 gallons per capita consumption in gallons, based on population age 14 and older) than the U.S. average of 2.33.

The PLCB's plans to increase sales are "good," but if the system were normalized, and a retailer wanted to increase alcohol sales...that would then be "bad?" Is private alcohol chemically different from PLCB alcohol? It's the same tax rate.

The PLCB and its pitiful handful of supporters somehow manage to overcome all of these issues, and continue to monopolize liquor and wine sales in the commonwealth. Kinda makes you wonder what keeps the Legislature from cleaning this up.

What we don’t have….

The latest failed tactic of those who want to keep the PLCB (largely the people who work there, and the unions they belong to) is to counter the “majority of states do it this way” argument with “but only X amount have this” – pick whatever consumer feature you want that PA doesn’t have and that they don’t want us to have.

The one I like best is “only 15 states have one stop shopping for food and alcohol.” Of course, Pennsylvania isn’t one of those states and heaven forbid we try to lead the way instead of lagging behind. Truth be told is that 39 states have one stop shopping for alcohol including six of the so-called control states. Pennsylvania is a control state, and the most onerous of them all, because while only PA and Utah control wine and spirits retail, you can still buy some beer in Utah in a grocery store (by the case, if you really want!), but you can’t do that here, except in the few stores that have gone to the trouble and expense to buy a tavern license and put in a "cafe" and even then you still can't buy a case at one time.

So in in 39 states you only have to make one trip to buy a case, a six-pack, a bottle of wine and some bourbon; in 10 states you have to make 2 trips; but only in the Commonwealth...do you have to make three trips.

Perhaps if we didn’t have to waste so much time we could write our legislators and list this idiocy as yet another of the myriad of reasons to get the PLCB out of all retail and wholesale.

Privatization – the ultimate modernization.

The Case Law, The Case Law, The Case Law. What will it take?

Lots to talk about with the final McIlhinney Hearing taking place yesterday, but one thing comes to the top: so-called "package reform," which is Harrisburgese for "gently adjusting the Case Law."

Look, I have a radical idea for "package reform." Step aside from liquor privatization for the ten minutes it should take to accomplish this! Separate bill, NOW:

"The Case Law Was A Stupid Mistake And We're Sorry" Bill, being a bill to eliminate ALL volume restrictions on individual beer sales by licensed retailers immediately.

Fill in the details -- that's what all those lawyers they keep chained up in caves under the Capitol Building are for -- remove all references to case/sixpack restrictions on sales in the Liquor Code, put it to a vote. No deals, no delays, no trade-offs, no suck-ups. Done.

Over 80% of Pennsylvanians oppose the Case Law; and the Legislature's been diddling around with changing it since I moved back to Pennsylvania in 1991. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. Why do we keep voting for these idiots?

Don't just read this. Copy it, send it to your legislator, and ask them WHY they can't do this one simple thing. Will it piss off the tavern owners, because now beer distributors can sell sixpacks? Sure, some of them. Will it piss off the beer distributors, because now the supermarkets with tavern licenses can sell cases and kegs? Sure, some of them. Will it make the state's brewers happy? Probably, they'll likely sell more beer. Will it make almost every beer-drinking Pennsylvanian happy? HELL YEAH! Hmmm...will it make the beer wholesalers happy? Actually, I don't know, but...

Come on! It's not going to make everyone happy, but it's going to make literally millions of us beer drinkers overjoyed!

The Selection Lie

When the PLCB Partisans have made their statements about how dangerous privatization is -- ignoring the fact that it doesn't seem to be causing chaos or undue harm in the states that have it -- and how many jobs it's going to cost -- their jobs, usually, which isn't exactly objective, and ignores the jobs that privatization will inevitably create (if we don't do it the stupid way Senator McIlhinney wants to; yeah, Senator, I said stupid, and if you want to talk to me about it, you already have my email) -- and how much 'revenue' it will cost the state -- which 1)it won't, and 2)that's not the point anyway -- they often get around to saying something like, "And you know, privatization will mean less selection. The private stores don't carry as many different wines and liquors as the LCB does, and supermarkets won't carry a lot of your craft beers; they'll only carry what sells."

Can we just say "bullshit" and be done with it? Because you'd have to be feeble-minded to believe that argument (which really makes me worry about my own state representative, Frank Farry, who actually quoted it to me as the main reason he voted against HB790). All you have to do, quite literally, to disabuse yourself of this notion is go to one of the 160-odd Pennsylvania grocery stores that are now selling beer and look at their beer selection. The Wegmans in Downingtown, for instance, where I bought this bottle of Brooklyn Local 1.

Or you could go to the Whole Foods in Plymouth Meeting, where they even have six taps for filling growlers. But before you make this silly argument, do the really simple thing and just go look at what privately-owned supermarkets are already selling in Pennsylvania! And then stop blathering this ludicrous "talking point" that the state store clerk's union or the Malt Beverage Distributors Association gave you.

It's not just beer, either. Want to see what wine and liquor selection looks like in a privately-run store? Just go look at one! They're right across the border: Joe Canal's, Total, Roger Wilco, Moore Brothers... Are there corner bodegas in the side streets of Trenton that have tiny selections? Sure there are, just like the "grocery" selection at a 7-11 is dwarfed by what you can get at Wegmans, or Giant Eagle, or at an Aldi's, for that matter. That's the point: they don't all have the same stuff, so some of them have a lot more.

But really. If you're making these arguments, or even thinking about considering them as possible...Just. Go. Look. It's all you have to do to realize that they're pure delusion, lies, distortions of truth. If we break open wholesaling in this state -- and it can be the same "system" as the beer wholesalers, they're doing a great job supplying us with multitudes of beers! -- the private stores will get the selection. And it will be the selection you want, not the selection some PLCB committee in Harrisburg has decided you're going to get.

Tell Senator McIlhinney and your state senator that you want real privatization in Pennsylvania: privatized retail and privatized wholesale. If we don't get it all, there's no point. Happily, McIlhinney does get one thing:

"The committee's chairman, Sen. Charles McIlhinney, R-Bucks, also attacked part of Corbett's justification for selling private wine and liquor store licenses, the idea that a windfall of $1 billion or more would result. "If this is about a money maker, I don't think that's really where we should be going with it," McIlhinney told reporters after the hearing. "If we're going to do privatization and try to make more convenience out there, it shouldn't be some way to generate a billion dollars and then give it away."

Right on that one, Chuck. Now get your head straight on the rest of it. Don't compromise with people who aren't going to make a deal. 

The Beer Law Forum at Yards last week

As I warned you, we had another Beer Laws Forums at Yards Brewery in Philly last Thursday, set up by Philly Beer Scene. Senator Chuck McIlhinney was there, as were Bill Covaleski, of Victory Brewing Co., representing the Brewers of Pennsylvania, and Mike Gretz Sr. of Gretz Beer Distributors, representing things from the wholesalers point of view. I was on the panel representing the drinkers, and Tom Kehoe of Yards moderated. 

This was quite timely. Senator McIlhinney is going to be the new chairman of the Senate Law & Justice Committee (which handles liquor control), and to have him this engaged was great. He's obviously actively seeking input on this. We went right to him out of the box, asking why we had no sixpack sales in beer distributors. He started going off about grocery stores and the three tier system, and I interrupted him to explain that we were talking about the case law: why can't beer distributors sell beer by the sixpack? It would seem to be pretty simple.
 
But that set the tone for the whole night, and a frustration that has become familiar to those of us who want to rewrite The Almighty Liquor Code. It's because, he said, there are 22,000 licensees (tavern and deli licenses and such) in the state who don't want to lose their sixpack business, and they all vote. It quickly became apparent from audience comments that their employees vote too. But what about us, I responded: there are millions of us, and we vote. How can we make that important? It was a question we tried to get answered all night; we got something toward the end.

That led into a fairly simple question by Tom Peters at Monk's Cafe: if a beer is not registered in the state, and they want to get it in for a trial run, or a special event, is there some way to get it in without giving all the distribution rights to a wholesaler? Mike Gretz took that one and seemed to be saying that you could already do this under current state law (but several people in the room who are quite conversant with The Almighty Liquor Code told me that this was simply not so; I'm not sure). 

(Gretz took the opportunity -- as he did at least one other time -- to speak about the family businesses wholesalers represented (and the jobs), and the almost sacred trust of controlling alcohol abuse. I didn't agree with some of it -- it's just a defense of the three-tier system that wholesalers have been using successfully for years -- but I'm not insensitive to it, either. It's just that I can't help noticing that other states have sixpack sales AND sales in grocery stores, and there are no roving gangs of boozed-up semi-zombies there. Food for thought.)

Tom Peters would be quite vocal in support of the tavern owners' interests (understandably so) through the night. What are the tavern owners' interests? They have an asset -- their license -- that is quite valuable, worth tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars, and they don't want to see anything happen that will decrease the value of that license. Beer distributors selling sixpacks will cut into their sixpack business. Well...maybe. But the grocery stores that bought bar licenses to sell sixpacks are cutting into it now, and the fact is that for most licensees, sixpack sales are a tiny part of their income. Even those who have used their license to run sixpack stores would probably be able to compete, though with lower markup and more effort. But if they're going to give that right up, they want something in return, and that...is where politics and the art of the possible will come into play. 

And that is why we have no sixpack law, because the tavern owners haven't been happy with any deal they've been offered. I get that it's their family business, their livelihood, but...we vote too. Maybe, with an activist leader coming to the committee, it's time to cut that deal.

Speaking of cutting deals, we did get into privatization. The senator is backing a plan to sell wine and spirits by the bottle for takeout at bars. The licensee would pay a $10,000 annual fee for that right (this would obviously lead to the equivalent of specialty bottleshops like The Foodery, but for wine or spirits, or both). Tom was skeptical; many places don't have the room for the inventory that would require. Well, then don't get the license, or figure something else out: if there's money to be made, people will figure out a way to make it. 

That's 22,000 possible additional liquor stores, of course, and that sounds interesting, until you understand that the Senator's plan still has the PLCB as wholesaler. So there's your selection, shot in the arse. Although who knows, if they don't have to figure out how to sell it, maybe they'll actually get some good stuff in? Thing is, we don't know, and that's when I blew my top and started shouting. I thought this was an idiotic plan -- I still do -- and that it's not really what we want, which is privatization. I calmed down, embarrassed, but still angry.

Then the Senator pointed out that while he would like to replace the state stores with private outlets (that's a paraphrase, I didn't get the exact quote, but it's very encouraging from a state senator running Liquor Control), we had to realize what he had to work with. "40% of the townships in Pennsylvania are dry," he said. Let me repeat that: Senator McIlhinney said, "40% of the townships in Pennsylvania are dry."*

That may seem crazy in 2012, but consider. NONE of the townships in the five counties in southeast PA are dry, so we're not the best judges down here. I do know of dry townships where I grew up in Lancaster County; they're still out there, and they don't go wet. As the senator said, increasing the number of licenses sounds great to you here, but when he goes out and to try to convince a senator from Adams County (west of York) on this, he doesn't get a lot of support from the area. It's pretty rural, pretty conservative. 

I think that was when we got a great comment from the audience: If alcohol is so important and dangerous that you can't privatize it, why are we privatizing schools? The wholesalers and tavern owners talk about family businesses, my parents are educators, this is my family business, and you're privatizing the education of your children. If you can do that, why not wine sales? The Senator denied that schools were being privatized -- maybe not up where he is, but in Philly they were -- and the whole thing got a bit disjointed, but it was an excellent point. It also underscores that most of the arguments against privatization are about union jobs and tax revenue, not health and safety.

We decided it was time to wrap things up, so we asked the Senator: what do we do to get through to our legislature that we want this to happen? Show up at things like this, he said: done. Write to your legislators: do it. What about other legislators? He kind of chuckled: you don't vote for them, so they won't really be impressed. Maybe, but...it can't hurt (I wrote the governor, too, BTW).

The thing is...to get their attention, you have to write often, and there has to be a LOT of you. We are going to have to organize, and as this is all going to start up again in February, and we don't even have buy-in on what it is we want...that's daunting. So by the end of the week: I'll have a punchlist of what it is we want. We'll go from there.

Remember: Privatization IS Modernization; an End to The Case Law.





Note that this 2009 newspaper piece gives a number of 28% of the townships and municipalities as dry, and 12% of state's population lives in them. Even though that's less than 40%, it's still a lot.

Next month: beer law forum at Yards Brewing

If you're in the Philly metro area, you ought to join us at Yards Brewing on November 8, at 7 PM for another Beer Laws Forum, put on by Philly Beer Scene. Here's the scoop:

Join us for the 2nd of our Beer Laws Forums. Last February we had an open forum discussing the different beer laws affecting Pennsylvania. Senator Chuck McIlhinney who writes our Beer Laws column and Lew Bryson answered questions and Tom Kehoe of Yards moderated.
For this forum, Tom, Lew and the Senator have all generously agreed to once again sit on the panel, and this time will be joined by Bill Covaleski, of Victory Brewing Co who will be representing the Brewers of Pennsylvania, and Mike Gretz Sr. of Gretz Beer Distributors, who will be representing things from the wholesalers point of view. The forum is open to the public and we will do our best to answer everyone's questions.
The event will be held at the Yards Brewing Co. tasting room and the bar will be open for the event. 

You should come, because this is a chance to find out what's really going on with liquor law in the Keystone State. We are in an activist phase in the legislature with regards to the Liquor Code; things ARE changing...but not the case law, and not its even more ridiculous corollary, the "only 2 sixpacks law" that says if you want to buy more than 192 oz. of beer to go at a bar...you have to buy two sixers, step outside, then come back in and buy more. 

I want at least one of you to ask the Senator what the chances are of killing or even significantly changing the case law by this time next year. He'll say it's not going to happen this year...then I'll do my bit and ask him "Why not?" Then, most importantly, I'll ask Tom, Bill, and Mike what their position is on the case law. 

We all want sixpack sales. We'd really like beer sales of any volume at grocery stores (and convenience stores and gas stations and drugstores; you know, like they do in other states?), although we know that's not likely. But why can't we get sixpack sales? You need to ask the Senator, then go home and ask your legislator the same question. And don't settle for "No." Ask why. 

And while you're at Yards, do what I do: drink plenty of Brawler. It's my debating beer of choice.

How to 'save' the State Stores and make privatization go away

All this time we've been talking about privatizing, and the union and the social conservatives and the beer retailers have been railing about it, and yet the talk continues...wanna know a secret?

It would be really easy to get Pennsylvanians to accept the State Store System forever.

Really. Here's all you have to do.

1. Change the name of the Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax. Just change the name. Call it the Pennsylvania Alcohol Excise Tax, and most people will never say another word about it. It's the idea that the tax was for the Johnstown Flood and we're still paying it that drives them crazy.
2. Get rid of Joe Conti and the CEO position. The man's a disaster: the wine kiosks alone would prove that, but the constant ethics investigations are a drag as well. The CEO position is such an obvious patronage job that it's painful.
3. End the police-enforced monopoly. Just give up. It's rarely enforced, and it's galling to Pennsylvanians. Accept you're going to have to compete with businesses over the border...just like every other retailer does (and consider lowering the PA Alcohol Excise Tax to be more competitive...and watch sales go up, and overall revenues go up as people have fewer reasons to buy booze -- and food, and gas, and everything else -- outside of PA).
4. Kill the case law. It's not part of the State Store embroglio, but it's a thorn in our sides, and taking it away will calm us down. 
5. Link advancement of product knowledge to retention and promotion in the work force. If the union wants to keep their jobs, have them make this major concession: their retail jobs will actually depend on them selling products. 
6. Double the number of stores, kill the stock requirements, and allow local control of stocking. Do we really need 2500 SKUs in Clarks Summit, when you can -- supposedly -- easily order something through the stores? Cut the operational costs of running State Stores. Allow local control of ordering, not one plan put in place in all stores by a committee in Harrisburg.
7. Put the BLCE back under the PLCB. The PLCB and their enforcement arm don't work together. The BLCE used to be part of the PLCB; put them back together.
8. Make the PLCB answerable to the State Government. A lot of the arrogance and crap we've seen out of the PLCB over the past five years stems directly from the agency's independence. There's no reason it should be so independent. The easiest way would be to make it part of the Department of Revenue.

Do those things, and Pennsylvanians will be satisfied enough that privatization will never pass. Not in my lifetime.

Why do I lay this out, when I dearly want privatization to pass? Simple. I know the Legislature and the PLCB will never get their shit together enough to do any of this, even though none of it would hurt state revenues.

Crunch Time -- A Bill is in Debate

I don't have time to explain why I've been silent here for over six months -- a lot of it was work, and some of it was that I did a lot of talking on Facebook, which I now realize was wasted -- but that's not important right now. What is important is that HB 11, a privatization bill, is being debated in the Pennsylvania House today. Debate began last night, and continues this morning. That's exciting, but...the bill needs a LOT of work.

I've got some suggestions. Oddly enough, I got into an email discussion with Jon Geeting, who's involved with the Keystone Politics blog, "Pennsylvania's source for liberal political news and commentary." Jon's an example of why this is not your typical privatization battle, which usually lines up as liberal vs. conservative, free marketer vs. union supporter. Jon recognizes that the system we have is not as it should be, and while we don't see eye-to-eye on the taxes -- though we're not 180 degrees opposed -- we agree on a lot about the state's dysfunctional liquor code.

As I said, we got into a discussion recently, and came to six points that we agreed on, and think should be in any Pennsylvania booze privatization bill. Note that there is nothing in here about the actual end of the State Stores -- except that point 1 covers that effectively; they won't survive the competition -- or the union, because that's up to the legislators. Jon posted them yesterday at Keystone Politics, and I realized that it was time to blow off the cobwebs here and get back in the game. Here are the six points. They're somewhat controversial...in Pennsylvania. In other states, they're ho-hum standard.

1. Let supermarkets sell beer, wine and liquor, effective immediately. -- In Portugal, they sell bottles of whiskey in coffee shops; you can buy beer in supermarkets in most of the states that border PA, you can buy champagne at convenience stores in Virginia...and yet, no one's rioting in the streets. What's the big deal?

2. Charge a flat fee to any business that wants to sell booze – no cap on licenses. -- Pennsylvania's licensing system is broken, it makes no sense for the state, and the artificial limits on licenses penalize areas that are experiencing growth. Liquor licenses sell for upward of $300,000 in some counties...and the State sees only a puny annual fee from that. Get smarter: charge what a license is worth, and charge it every year.

3. Tax volume, not value. -- Pennsylvania's hated Johnstown Flood Emergency Tax is not going away; the State gets revenue from that tax, and booze taxes are an unfortunate reality. But most other states have a gallonage tax, that is placed equally on wine and spirits by the "proof gallon," a measure of volume of alcohol, rather than the way Pennsylvania does it, which is by a percentage of the price. What Pennsylvania's tax does -- unintended consequences -- is make blotto booze (cheap wine, cheap vodka) even cheaper, while making better booze even more expensive. If we're taxing alcohol for some health or moral reason, the gallonage tax is more honest; if it's just about raising revenue...well, why not put an excise tax on everything and share the pain?

4. Allow Pennsylvanians to buy wine, spirits, or beer in other states, or through the mail/Internet from anywhere, without penalty. -- End the police-enforced monopoly. This is pretty simple. The only reason this unAmerican, anti-federal "stop you at the borders" law is even allowed is because of an overactive interpretation of the 21st Amendment. After all, I'm allowed to buy gas, food, books, clothing, whatever I want in New Jersey or Ohio; why not booze? We're American adults; we deserve to be treated that way.

5. Allow any authorized retailer to sell beer in any volume they desire, without fake restrictions. -- End the case law. Now. End all artificial restrictions on how little beer someone can buy in a single purchase, as well as how much. The case law and its tavern corollary, the "two sixpack" law, make no sense. They are there as a favor to business, not for any kind of health reason, and certainly not for the Pennsylvania consumer. Or the Pennsylvania voter. The Legislature has fiddled around for years over this simple change. Shut up and do it.

6. Open up the wholesale market to more competition. -- More wholesalers means more competition, which means better prices and service. Charging $100 million for a wholesaler license is not a way to get more wholesalers. End state-required exclusivity contracts for products; if a wholesaler and producer/importer want to enter into an exclusivity contract, that's up to them and their lawyers, but the State has no interest in mandating it. Another law that was written by the industry...and it's about time we got laws written for the consumers.

These six points will make me no friends in the industry. They completely upset the apple cart, and may ruin long-established family businesses. But they will create new businesses, and the solid family businesses will thrive and succeed...as long as big businesses, chain retailers, aren't allowed to write this privatization bill.

We get one shot at this. Get in touch with your Representative now, today! Tell them you want a better privatization bill. You want a fair privatization bill. You want them to work for you.

Retail Booze Privatization: why HB11 doesn't cut it

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

1. The Case Law is Stupid. Do I really need to tell you why? Okay, here: have a look. But that's okay, because...
2. 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...
3. 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!

Dopey Case Law Still Gets Enforced...Reluctantly

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!

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

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. 

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

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?

Tennis match continues: Wegmans beer sales now okay, says PA Commonwealth Court

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has upheld the PLCB's original actions in granting licenses to two Wegmans supermarkets (in Bethlehem and Williamsport). [Follow-up: SHOCKER! The Malt Beverage Distributors Association has said it will appeal this ruling to the State Supreme Court! Wow! Didn't see that coming... Sheesh.] This AP story (the link is to the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader) tells the story in a somewhat cock-eyed manner; read that second sentence:

Beer sales at restaurants run by the Wegmans supermarket chain got court approval Monday in a pair of cases that expand where consumers can buy take-out alcohol.

The unanimous decision in Commonwealth Court allows patrons to circumvent beer distributors where customers may only purchase beer by the case. The court rejected arguments by the state beer retailers' association that Wegmans created a "legal fiction" by routing suds sales through cafes that are attached by an interior passageway to their grocery stores.

The ruling upheld license approvals by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for Wegmans stores in Bethlehem and Williamsport. The Pennsylvania Malt Beverage Distributors Association sued last March to appeal the agency's decisions.

The bolded sentence makes me wonder who on the staff of the Times Leader decided this story should be cast as so unfair against beer distributors. It would have been more accurate to simply state "The unanimous decision in Commonwealth Court allows Wegmans to use the restaurant licenses they legally acquired to sell beer by the drink and up to two six-packs to go, just like other restaurant licenses."

But here's my takeaway from the article, in that this is a non-event:

"There hasn't been a change in the law, there hasn't been a change in restaurant licenses, there hasn't been a change in the LCB policy," said liquor board spokesman Nick Hays. "What has happened is some of these stores have made business decisions to incorporate full-service restaurants in their businesses."

Like I keep saying: this is not new law. This has been legal for years, it's just that no one's done it. Now that supermarkets like Wegmans are doing nice in-store restaurants, though, why not? It's just a restaurant. Is the MBDA against restaurants and bars?

The real problem here is the case law, the concomitant "2 sixers at a bar" law, and the artificial and arbitrary nature of booze laws in general in the Commonwealth. Supermarkets can't sell beer, beer stores can't sell groceries, delis can sell both...why?

There is no answer, because the reasons are ridiculous. Just one more Reason...

Reason #15: The Case Law is Stupid

About fourteen years ago, I worked beer retail for a while at the distributor* that Matt Guyer would later buy and turn into the acclaimed Beer Yard. It was called the Beverage Store at the time, though some people still called it Kiley's. Not important.

Anyway, we were not far from Villanova, and about once a week we'd get some kid in who'd walk around, look confused, and finally walk up and ask where we had the sixpacks for sale. I was usually relieved, because this meant we wouldn't have to go through the bullshit of "What? I left my ID in the car!" (as if anyone ever really does that) or "Look at me, man, I'm 21!" Instead, I'd just say, "Sorry, we can't sell sixpacks; this is Pennsylvania. You'll have to go to a bar." And the look on their faces was always so worth it: jaw-dropped, flat-out, 'Say frickin' what?!'

Sad part is, they were right. It's ridiculous, but in Pennsylvania, when you go to a beer store*, you can't buy one bottle, you can't buy a four-pack, you can't buy a six-pack, an eight-pack, a nine-pack, a 12-pack, or even an 18-pack. Cuz that's illegal. You have to buy a case. Unless, of course, you really want to buy less, in which case you can go to a tavern (or a place with a so-called "deli license"), where you can buy a six-pack, or a 12-pack, or two six-packs...but no more than that. Cuz that's illegal.

Say frickin' what?!


Reason #15:

The Case Law Has No Reason To Live


Here it is, in all its dopey glory (The Almighty Liquor Code, Article IV, SECTION 441):

DISTRIBUTORS’ AND IMPORTING DISTRIBUTORS’ RESTRICTIONS ON SALES, STORAGE, ETC., paragraph b: No distributor*or importing distributor* shall sell any malt or brewed beverages in quantities of less than a case or original containers containing one hundred twenty-eight ounces or more which may be sold separately: Provided, That no malt or brewed beverages sold or delivered shall be consumed upon the premises of the distributor or importing distributor, or in any place provided for such purpose by such distributor or importing distributor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or act, malt or brewed beverages which are part of a tasting conducted pursuant to the board's regulations may be consumed on licensed premises.

The scary thing is, the bare bones of the Case Law aren't all of it. For instance, the two six-pack limit in the bar? What most of the six-pack shops in places like State College won't tell you when they're telling you that you are only allowed to buy two six-packs...is that you can then step outside the door of the licensed premises, step back in, and legally buy two more (assuming you'd want to pay bar mark-up on a case).

Want a really weird one? Check this out. Used to be, if a case at a distributor's* got damaged, like if the pallet jack caught the corner or someone dropped a case, the remnants of the case could be combined with another damaged case and sold, a "mixed" case. Big deal, right? Well, check this out from Paragraph f from the same section of The Almighty Liquor Code:

(1) To salvage one or more salable cases from one or more damaged cases, cartons or packages of malt or brewed beverages, a distributor or importing distributor may repackage consequent to inadvertent damage and sell a case, carton or package of identical units of malt or brewed beverages.
(2) Repackaging is permissible only to the extent made necessary by inadvertent damage. Repackaging not consequent to damage is prohibited.
(3) The term _identical units_ as used in this subsection means undamaged bottles or cans of identical brand, package and volume. (added May 31, 1996, P.L.312, No.49)

So...some distributors were "damaging" cases and combining them, because customers had gotten so interested in trying different beers (and not wanting to buy a whole damned case at a time of ONE). Big flippin' deal, right? Wrong. This practice scared and pissed somebody so much that just 13 years ago, they managed to get The Almighty Liquor Code changed to specifically outlaw it. (The legislator who put it in there retired; last I heard he was lobbying for the health care industry.) That's crazy, that's not just stupid, that's plain mean-spirited.

Why do we even have this uniquely stupid law? It originated in Repeal. It was part of a model law written up by the beer wholesalers and presented to the Legislature after Repeal; they figured that they'd try to get what they wanted in Repeal by saving the legislators the work of writing law. They put the case law in there to increase sales and decrease work: nobody's got to break up a case, and you have to buy at least a case at a time (and you had to pay cash on both sides of the transaction, too). The State went for it (with all the other dumb shit they put in The Almighty Liquor Code, are you surprised?).

But why is it still there, over 70 years later, when Pennsylvanians almost uniformly hate it? I've seen results of a poll asking Pennsylvania voters about a variety of issues: over 80% of them said they'd like to see the case law go away. MADD doesn't want it, Bible-thumpers don't care about it. So why has the Legislature fiddled and diddled with a variety of ways to change the case law but never yet done a damned thing?

What's that? Money must be involved? Aren't you the smart one! Bar owners don't want the case law to change because they've got a monopoly on six-pack sales. Some people have made the investment in a bar license just to sell six-packs. Distributors don't want to rock the boat: selling six-packs would mean completely re-designing their stores, putting in coolers and maybe carpet (most distributors' stores have all the charm of a garage). And everyone in the business is sure that breaking the case law will mean beer sales in supermarkets.

As a beer buyer, you're probably asking what the down side for you is on all this. The answer would be, not much, although it is an unknown. There is a chance that six-pack sales would change the draft beer scene, that six-pack sales would change the dynamics that keep small distributors in business, that they might even make it harder for craft brewers to stay in the market (though I think that last one is pretty iffy). But balance that against being able to buy beer like normal people: as little or as much as you want.

This is not actually a Reason to Abolish the PLCB. This is not an issue central to its existence. But take a look up there at the description of the blog: One person's reasons why the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board should be abolished, and The Almighty Liquor Code completely overhauled and rewritten... This is certainly one bit of The Almighty Liquor Code that needs to be re-written. Therefore...

The Almighty Liquor Code should be re-written to do away with all restrictions on beer sales by amount. No more case law, no more two six-pack limit, no more no re-packing cases. And when we get rid of it, let's have no deals, no complicated balancing acts, no bullshit. Just excise that part of the code. And when it comes to sales and percentages, let the individual businesses compete on their merits, and how well they serve the customers' needs.

Simple. Radical. Do it now, we can get around to the abolishing later.



*In Pennsylvania, we call the beer stores "distributors." You know, the place that sells cases of beer, because that's the only quantity they're allowed to? I don't know why they're called that.