Sunday liquor sales possible
Bill to lift ban wins backing of beverage stores
By Roger Fillion, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 24, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated January 24, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.
Photo by The Rocky / 2007
Customers shop in the liquor and wine area of a Safeway store in Littleton, the only Safeway in the state allowed to sell liquor.
Colorado liquor store owners have reversed their long-standing opposition to Sunday liquor sales, making prospects for legislation that would lift the ban much brighter.
The bill is one of two Colorado lawmakers are poised to consider this session: The other bill would let grocery stores sell regular beer (which has a higher alcohol content) and wine.
State law has banned both practices since Prohibition ended in 1933.
Observers inside and outside the Capitol say the bill to permit Sunday liquor sales, SB-082, appears to stand a better chance of passage because liquor store owners who vehemently opposed such a move three years ago now support the idea, partly for political reasons.
By contrast, they oppose grocery store chains selling wine and regular beer, warning it would put "hundreds of mom- and-pop liquor stores" out of business.
"That would devastate me," said Jeanne McEvoy, owner of Aspen Leaf Liquor in Fort Collins and a member of the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association, which represents smaller liquor stores.
Safeway and King Soopers are the chief proponents of the grocery bill, expected to be introduced soon.
Supporters argue that the move would make it more convenient for shoppers and create about 500 jobs in Colorado - such as liquor department managers and wine stewards.
"Competition should benefit consumers," said Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, who expects to offer a bill by Feb. 8. "I've heard back from a number of constituents in my district who think this would be a reasonable change to the law."
The distilled spirits industry has pushed for Sunday liquor sales in Colorado, noting that 34 states permit Sunday sales of distilled spirits.
Sixteen states, including Colorado, ban the practice, as does Washington, D.C. Since 2002, 12 states have overhauled their liquor laws to allow Sunday sales, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.
The industry trade group estimates that year-round Sunday sales of distilled spirits in Colorado would produce an extra $23 million to $32 million in liquor store revenue and $1.8 million to $2.6 million in additional state sales tax revenue. More than 1,600 liquor stores operate in Colorado.
Liquor store owners soundly defeated a Sunday sales bill here three years ago, citing religious, economic and personal reasons.
Why the switch on Sunday sales?
"If it's what the consumer wants and it's going there, there's no use fighting it," said Scott Robinson, co-owner of Wilbur's Total Beverage in Fort Collins, summing up the general attitude. "We'll make more money being open seven days a week."
Robinson also conceded that support of the Sunday sales legislation could help liquor store owners head off the grocery store bill.
"We'd rather be meeting the needs of the consumer when that one shows up," he said.
Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, said she introduced the Sunday sales bill for consumer "convenience."
"The law is out of date," she said.
Lining up in support are the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association; the Korean Retail Liquor Association; the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of Colorado; the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States; and a group of about two dozen large liquor stores including Argonaut Liquors and Daveco Liquors.
The same coalition opposes the grocery legislation.
The bill Shaffer is expected to introduce would permit grocery stores to sell regular beer and wine six days a week, except Sunday. Currently, they can sell only beer with 3.2 percent alcohol.
The planned bill also would permit only those grocers that have a pharmacy and whose food sales make up 51 percent of their gross sales to sell alcohol.
Supporters say the 51 percent provision is designed to keep big retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target from driving out smaller rivals.
Currently, Colorado law allows the holder of a retail license to sell liquor and full-strength beer and wine at only one store in the state. Five chain-store operators - including Safeway, SuperTarget, Super Kmart, Whole Foods and Rite Aid - have such stores.
Sean Duffy, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Food Industry Association, said liquor stores enjoy a "bit of a monopoly" on beer and wine sales.
Duffy, a principal at the Kenney Group - a Denver public relations and public affairs firm - said the increased competition would be "good for consumers."
He likened the idea of groceries selling beer and wine to their selling flowers in the floral department. And he said liquor stores could still thrive.
Duffy pointed to a survey done by Safeway of its Vons grocery stores in Southern California. Of the 292 Vons stores surveyed in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas, 75 percent responded that they had at least two liquor stores within a half- mile.
But liquor store owners such as Aspen Leaf Liquor's McEvoy argue they'd be put out of business, as shoppers scoop up bottles of beer and wine at the grocery store rather than make an extra trip to the liquor store.
More than 75 percent of McEvoy's sales come from beer and wine. Many liquor stores, including Aspen Leaf Liquor, operate in the same plaza as a grocery store. McEvoy is near an Albertsons.
"I'm going to have to default on an SBA loan," she said, referring to a Small Business Administration loan. "I have six years left on my 10-year lease."
Opponents of the change also charge it would be self-serving for stores such as King Soopers and Safeway because rural grocers without pharmacies would be barred - as would Target and Wal-Mart - because they sell merchandise other than food.
Shaffer said he's trying to hammer out a compromise that would be "fair to all parties."
Responded Scott Chase, a spokesman for the two dozen large liquor stores: "If Sen. Shaffer had been doing any outreach to liquor stores, he would know of their complete opposition to the grocery bill."
fillionr@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2467
What the proposals would do
Colorado lawmakers are expected to take up two liquor-related bills - one to permit liquor stores to open on Sundays and another to allow grocery stores to sell regular beer and wine. Both practices have been banned here since Prohibition ended in 1933.
* Sunday sales: SB-082, introduced by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, would permit liquor stores to open Sundays. Sixteen states and Washington, D.C., bar Sunday sales of distilled spirits.
* Grocery stores: Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, is expected to offer a bill soon that would permit grocery stores such as Safeway and King Soopers to sell regular beer and wine six days a week, except Sundays. Stores that qualify must have a pharmacy and food sales that make up at least 51 percent of gross sales.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
January 24, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
ItsJustme writes:
I don't understand how or believe that there will be a substantial increase in sales. Are there really that many people who currently don't remember that the liquor store is closed on Sundays and so don't buy their stuff on Saturdays?
January 24, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Our laws are outdated. Why even add the provision so Target and Walmart can't sell? Our laws are not supposed to give ANY group a monopoly on sales! Safeway, Target, Walmart, etc... will be able to offer liquor at a far better price than the mom and pop places. It's time for the folks on Capitol Hill to start representing consumers, not the liquor store lobby!
January 24, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dhakala writes:
If big box stores sell the bread and butter booze, then mom and pop will have only the specialty liquors to sell. This is another shift of economic power to giant corporate interests. It's sad. It's also inevitable.
January 24, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
hinona writes:
1933? Prohibition? And this state wants new jobs, new influx of people, people from other areas of the country that are finished with the "Scarlet Letter"? If this state wants to embrace the 21st century and take that leap into modern society, then this is a no brainer. Remember, change is good? Free enterprise and competition is good...The archaic laws that came off of the Mayflower should have long been gone. What if the liquor stores were closed from Friday night through Saturday night? Thats also "the day of rest" for some people. What would Colorado think of that? And the next thing to be visited is the car agencies closed on Sunday. The last time I heard the word Puritan was on Thanksgiving.. and that should be the only time. Wake up. We are living in the 21st century.
January 24, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tree_Hugger writes:
Limiting grocery stores to selling 3.2 beer is silly. Let them sell the real thing, for Pete's sake.
While it's somewhat sad to see mom and pop liquor stores being squeezed out by Wal-Mart, the same thing has already happened to clothing stores, corner grocery stores, local hardware stores, etc. Apparently, Americans just can't resist cheap Chinese goods -even while our economy lapses into a recession.
January 24, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
kmeissner writes:
I agree with JB. These mom and pop stores have created a monopoly on Liquor sales and now they don't want bigger stores to give us a better deal on it?
January 24, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
psu96 writes:
Chances are there are too many liquor stores in your 'hood anyway...now wheres my 40oz malt
January 24, 2008
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Keep them closed SUNDAYS, if you can't remember to buy before the weekend and then can't make it through one day with out a bottle, There is a much bigger problem at work!
Selling in the grocery store etc - not needed either, It will open things up for easier access to those under age, and what of the increased cost of trying to enforce the law on 100's of additional sales outlets.
This is stupid and the legislature has more meaningful and more important work to consider.
I have to wonder..
how many lobbyist bought lunches brought this around??
January 24, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Treehugger...
3.2 Beer will get you just as drunk and almost as quickly..
MOST commercial beer in this country is about 4.0-4.5% anyway so the difference is minimal.
As someone who (more than 25 years ago) worked at Coors, I can tell you their (at least then) 3.2 and "6%" are the SAME, about 4.0 They would simply change the lid being put on the can and the beer flowing and the filling machine would never stop. never even slow down!
Why do you think the Wal-marts and King Soopers want to sell it anyway?
The margin on booze is huge, and they won't be giving us a break on the price either - just enhancing their bottom line.
Do you really want to rely on clerks at these often busy stores to be cheking ID's and keep it out of the hands of teens?
Once again tho - we need to follow the paper trail - the GREEN ($) paper trail..
January 24, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
hinona writes:
Here is the real issue. its not about mom and pop stores, its not about buying on Saturdays if you need it on Sunday. Its about GETTING RID OF PURITANICAL LAWS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MORAL MENTALITY OF A SELECT GROUP THAT DECIDES WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU. We are living in a democracy in the 21st century. Maybe we should start issuing berkas to be worn on Sundays too. Isnt there more important issues for this state to worry about like upping the level of the education rather than deciding whether or not Target should be able to sell a bottle of wine?
January 24, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
I'd be a bit less concerned about teens smoking than drinking!
And I believe (MHO) you are wrong about those under 18 in posession of tobbaco products- it might be a city or county thing, but I think it is one that is just not enforced.
What public good will their be from selling booze wine beer in the grocery store and Wallgreens other than convenience... of a few
I wish we could find the lobbyists on this one and find just who is so hard behind it that the some legislature thinks it is a good bill to introduce.
They have more important things to get to work on...
January 24, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
hinona writes:
I would suggest that you look at the states that currently embrace the blue laws. That is the "company" this insane law puts Colorado in. And Colorado wants the high tech to come here and give this economy a shot in the arm? Never happen.... not with this mentality.
So for g_ds sake, stay at home pray - and pray hard because you who think like this will need it.
January 24, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
>>The industry trade group estimates that year-round Sunday sales of distilled spirits in Colorado would produce an extra $23 million to $32 million in liquor store revenue and $1.8 million to $2.6 million in additional state sales tax revenue. More than 1,600 liquor stores operate in Colorado.<<
Not sure I can believe that sales will increase over all by that amount, maybe that is would the Grocery chains expect to sell, but this is hog wash. Dangle the carrot of increased tax revenue..If consumption increases that much by selling booze one more day of the week, this state and country has a really unbelievable alcohol problem. More than likely the sales would migrate from other outlets and days of the week (like Fridays maybe)
Someone tell me where the money will come from to police these new store from selling to minors... that falls on the city and county and IF revenues to the state do move up at all, the local law enforcment agencies won't see it.
January 24, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
hinona:
What is your agenda?
Your arguments don't make good sense. You really believe that because Colorado does not sell beer and wine on Sunday and car dealer are closed that high tech companies will not locate here??
Why did so many companies locate here and the state had such high growth rate over the past 20 years then? Are we attracting only the Puritains?
You even say your self there are more important issues ...
Colorado has done just fine for 50+ years with liquors store being closed on SUNDAY. Bars used to have to close at mid-night on Sunday.
I can't get why this is so important, and I thing it has some drawbacks and costs to consider.
But your rant about being in the 21st Century and Puritanical laws is a fools argument in support of this change.
I have a clear idea this is about the money the big chains will stand to haul in more than anything else. I'd prefer local stores with the profits staying in the state not going to the board of Safeway or King Soopers! And everybody could use a day off - pick one - does not have to be Sunday.
(BTW - I don't pray - I am an agnostic so you can stop you anti-religious winning too, that's a whole other debate!)
January 24, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Wouldn't it be something if we tax paying adult consumers could be allowed to rely on our ability to make our own choices? Theres a word for that...Oh yes, freedom. It's about time. Lets get it done so we can start working on some of the other Nanny knows best laws.
January 24, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fishbear writes:
Is anyone here from Aurora? On literally every major street intersection there is a liquor store on every side, NW, NE, SW, & SE... doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous????
Other states allow regular alcohol sales in grocery stores and you don't see their economy collapsing...
January 24, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
I base my opinions on the whole of my life experience and perceptions.
I have lived in California they have Wine and beer only I think in grocery stores, I also spent time in Atlanta and think they are the same... So what? I have also spent a lot of time in UTAH, and they have some very restrictive laws on alcohol sales in general - but believe me there are still plenty of chances and places to get you beer and drink or party it up. (I know First hand, No problem.)
Good point on Liquor stores being able to choose to close, but I'd bet few would. The competion question and the Mom and Pop's having a monopoly - that argument can't hold much water - in my 'hood' within less than 5 minuets drive of each other their are 4 liquor stores. plenty of competition! I must pass at least 10-12 on my :45 min drive home.
To police and enforce the law with that many more retail locations will take resources - I didn't really say there would be a huge increase in sales to minors, but there could be without enforement. (Some of these chains do not hire the brighteset or the best of citezens - most liquor stores I have been in have someone of maturity behind the counter) If minors are set on getting their hands on alcohol they can find a way - but we should not make it easier.
I also doubt this would create that many more (NET) jobs, as some liquor stores would certainly close, and others loose revenue
My point is really about this being about the big corporate money(them graping more and the profits going out of state) and putting locally owned stores out of business or reducing their profits. That and the legislature has more meaningful things to address - but now I am just repeating my self so --
OUT
January 24, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fishbear writes:
and what about the 'good ol' days' when Sears and Roebuck sold heroine needles in their catalog. They even came in a fancy metal case...
It's just changing times, people!
January 24, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustSayin writes:
We had a better society as the result of the blue laws. It's not that people went to church because the stores were closed, but they had time with friends and family.
Those of you who work in the service industry (and that's more and more Americans every day!) got screwed when they opened up retail on Sundays. This is just a last remaining vestige of some good old days that will disappear.
Before you start screaming "don't push your god on me!!" - I'm an atheist just calling it like I see it. One common day off a week for everyone was good for the community. But hell, it's all about "me" nowadays - community be damned.....
January 24, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
hinona writes:
Diff
First, I am not ranting or raving. I beleive in free enterprise and the right to compete. Thats sort of the laws of nature - survival of the fittest - or the brightest. In a nutshell, this law is archecic and puritanical. The fact that in 2008 it is still on the books is a travesty. The blue laws, prohibition and all the rest of that are long gone. Its time to let tax payers decide where and when they can purchase what they want and need. And your comment about high tech companies - I came from CA and worked in high tech. The only major player was Sun Micro. Im not going down that path but surfice to say, Sun has scaled way back on jobs in Colorado, Cisco never followed through and Level 3 cut way back.
And the comment that Colorado has done fine with this for 50 years so why change? Maybe you should throw away your computer and send these responses through the mail. After all, what was good enough 50 years ago should be good enough for now.
By the way, should this be passed and I hope there are enough forward thinking people to make that happen, you can always relocate to another state that does not sell liquor on Sundays... I hear Arkansas is a very progressive state to live in.
January 24, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
One more - I can't resist..
Because someone can't buy a bottle of wine or 6% beer on a Sunday it's a Travesty?!? Man are your priorities twisted!!!
And I think as we sit on the brink of a major economic down turn that almost ALL High Tech has cut back, all over the county - I don't think it had a thing to do with 'puritanical' Blue laws
If you liked CA so damn much, what are you doing here?!
MOVE BACK! (please) I think we took in over our quota from the land of the fruits and nuts.
"One should not argue with a fool, as another watching may not be able to tell the difference"
:-}
January 24, 2008
11:51 a.m.
jay writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
January 24, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
sam80241 writes:
I am a local business owner in Thornton who is concerned with the bill that might allow grocery stores to sell wine and beer. In a time where stock markets are crashing and our economy is about to head into a full-blown recession, I cannot understand why legislators would want to pass a law condemning thousands of Colorado workers to the unemployment line.
In my store, 70% of my sales are derived from beer and wine. With grocery stores being able to sell liquor, I would surely have to close down my store and put 10 people out of work. I think that if grocery stores are truly looking to “convenience” the customers then they should look into leasing retail space inside their store towards outside business owners. This would actually provide an increase in jobs and revenue into the state, rather than forcing more people out of work.
This law would allow a monopoly to be created by the grocery stores which would allow them to sell at a lower cost because of their increased orders. Local liquor stores would be forced to raise prices on all other spirits to compensate sales loss; this would only increase state economic problems. This law might also act as incentive for gas stations which would then claim sales losses from King Soopers and the liquor stores, thus causing them to fight for the right to sell spirits inside convenience stores. This would only create a bigger struggle for liquor store owners, keeping up with such heavy-hitters like King Soopers, Safeway, Wal Mart, and Conoco.
My biggest concern, however, is as a father of two young children. If grocery stores were able to sell liquor, then this would violate the 1,000 yard ordinance that is placed upon liquor sales and schools. My son’s school is not even one mile away from King Soopers, which is a local hang out for children after school. If children were to be exposed to an environment that was not as highly regulated as a liquor store (where we do not allow minors to be present alone in the store) then easier liquor access will be possible. The regulation of minor consumption will be harder to control, especially when dealing with those who purchase alcohol for minors. It would be harder to disprove that a customer was “just shopping” and decided to buy liquor than to prove they had intentionally entered a liquor establishment to procure illegal substances. If parents knew that access to liquor for minors would become easier under this law, then I am sure they would not agree to pass it.
I ask you to reconsider your proposal which will only make economic conditions in Colorado worse. We cannot allow for a monopoly to occur, especially when it could also risk illegal minor activity. Liquor store owners have agreed to allow the Sunday sales bill (SB 82), but we ask that you do not put us out of business because of our desire to help the customer.
January 24, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Ricky - why can't someone exercise the minimal amount of brain cells to plan for your activities and buy what you want any of the other 6 days of the week? or is that because some (not per se you..) are so pickled with alcohol that is asking too much?
Well said Sam! I agree with you about 95%!
January 24, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverLawDawg writes:
I don't drink, so I don't care; but I am opposed to lifting the no car sales on Sunday. It's the only day you can shop for a car without having a salesperson glued to your butt.
January 24, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Bizman ---
Can you say
LAS VEGAS!
Fun place to visit but I would not want to live there,well..
Maybe on second thought, they have no State income tax and most places have no Sales tax ....
Mmmmm
Lets tax the drug/ alcohol and other vises so the rest of can have it easy...
January 24, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Ok Bizzman, RickyLee can defend himself, boy and how, but I want to interject. Indeed, why aren't prostitution, and illicit drugs (including plant material), legal, organized and subject to tax? I can't figure why slots are restricted either.
Do you refrain from hookers, gambling,heroin, and booze on Sunday merely because these things are Governmentally prohibited? Couldn't you have decided to live in a way you felt was socially acceptable without the law stepping in and telling you what not to do? Do you really need Governmental parenting?
Sheeesh...let's outlaw carbon emmissions from excessive windbags.
January 24, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
sam80241 writes:
Dan2,
If the consumer should drive the market why do you only shop at King Soopers, drink Starbucks, eat McDonalds and shop WalMart. It seems to me that you are not a business owner, however, and you need to understand that small businesses revive the economy, generating many U.S. jobs while BIG businesses outsource all other work to different countries. It's a patriotic dream to be able to own your own business while knowing you can help local Americans in their own dreams. How would you recommend a contingency plan when we are going to have to become the BlockBusters fighting with NetFlix (go back further and imagine the Ma and Pop 99 cent movie stores dealing with BlockBusters)? Also, I hope you never are laid off because labor is cheaper in Asia; if you are, however, I'm sure that you can apply for a minimum wage job at King Soopers (where they keep you under 40 hours a week to avoid paying benefits) because there will be no other small businesses around to help pay someone like you.
January 24, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Jdub - don't think I implied that anyone who "makes a run to the store on a Sunday" is an alcoholic etc - I said SOME, that is not all it means a part or a fraction of the whole.
Actually it is the Addicted person who would be more sure to not run out. They plan there 'use' rather carefully!
I am not near as much against it being sold on Sunday as the Groceries and Wal-Marts selling ...(if your reading between the line and so ready take apart anything I said, I'd have guessed you'd have picked up on that)
Neither tho are nessessary and it really won't effect me personally one way or the other. What of not having a 6er when someone drops in on a Sunday - it is that important that you can't deal with it? or just run up to the local pub and have a drink.
I just question who is behind this and why? - Follow the Money -
and what might it mean to the local small business, and who's buying who, to get this thing in front of the legislature in the first place?
And more retailers selling on more days will cost time and money to enforce the law at a place where it will likely be harder to prevent minors from purchasing and maybe even harder to enforce as well.
What is the need to do this and who will really bennifit? No one has anseweredd these question or even addressed it!
Seems to me:
"It's all I about, what I want and I want it now!
And it's the job of everyone else to accommodate me."
Basiclly Selfishness.
January 24, 2008
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
fromero writes:
bizzman - if prostitution, gabbling, crack etc. were legal Monday through Saturday, it would seem unusual to make it illegal on Sunday. However, for good reasons they are not. Alcohol on the other hand is legal to purchase M-Sat so I do not understand why anyone would care if I purchase a bottle of wine on Sunday vs. any other day of the week.
January 24, 2008
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
cableboy764 writes:
I agree with selling liquor on Sundays. Also that letting grocery stores sell beer and wine is a bad idea. Liquor stores are not allowed to sell food and grocery stores shouldn't sell liquor. There is a liquor store within spitting distance of almost every grocery store in the state so the convienence argument isn't really relevent. And buying liquor will be less convienient as many stores will not be able to stay in business on liquor sales alone. The few hundred "new jobs" that the grocery stores will create will cost hundreds more their jobs. So to review:
Sunday sales good
Grocery store sales bad
January 24, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Boltfan007 writes:
Someone needs to seriously look into why Veiga has introduced her bill over and over again. It would probably reveal interesting relationships with the proponents, like King Soopers and Safeway, who have been trying to break in to liquor sales.
Why not ask Ms. Veiga what dog she has in this hunt....introducing it for consumer "convenience"? Do you really think she had a stream of her constituents lined up complaining about liquor sales? I smell something...
January 24, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jmfslots writes:
It' pretty clear to see that liquor stores want a monopoly on selling beer, wine and liquor. Why should the Grocery stores be limited to only 6 days a week? Furthermore, why limit sales to only beer and wine. Liquor should be included. I'll point to California as an example. It seems every drug store, grocer and other businesses sell Wine, Beer and Spirits. There is a book that comes out monthly, from the State, that lists every liquor and every size container sold in California. With this is the minumum allowable retail price for the liquor. This prevents big box stores and grocers from having an advantage over the independents. The only way any liquor is sold for less is in the case of Private Labels. In those cases, there is a set minimum percent of profit over cost that must be met. With this arrangement- the consumer has the convenience of doing their shopping without making additional stops. The independents are protected from unfair advantage by the big retailers. If a person is looking for a bargain then the private label products offed that. Like generic products do now. These are legal products unlike the examples some people use such as illegal drugs and Prostitution. Let's be realistic and compare apples to apples. -Jim (jmfslots)
January 24, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
sam80241 writes:
Dan2,
I cannot understand how you can be marketable and own your own business...were you so marketable that you hired yourself? We do cater to our customers but everyone knows the "convenience" factor is not gonna help our plight...I am also so glad to know that you as a business owner can pick up the slack and hire the thousands of Coloradans who will be unemployed if this bill passes. Also, your opinion about liquor stores next to markets...well if King Soopers pressures the land owner to not renew their lease with the liquor store or they will leave, as a business owner, who do you think the land owners will side with? Also, what are you going to do about those places that violate the 1000 yard ordinance next to schools? How are you going to regulate minors in a family-friendly atmosphere (that is the supermarket)? How to prevent shop lifting? If I'm in line for groceries with liquor will you have to switch out cashiers because mine is not 21...or should we just stop hiring students to work minimum wage jobs (I'm sure tons of people over 21 can live off of minimum wage)? As a business owner will you hire the minors?
January 24, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
You are assuming now Dan, It should not be that hard to find out who's lobbyist is spending the cash...
I doubt however it is the liquor makers or the distributors, they will sell esentially the same amount of product and for the same wholesale cost, maybe even less to the large retailers, basicly what do they care to what retailer?
The article says it's Safeway and King Soopers - too huge mutli- national corporations who are most concerned about their bottom line, and give squat about locally owned business and issues about minors buying booze. A $100.000/year in alcohol sales to one of these stores would mean more profit than an equivalent dollars in food sales. The markup on liquor and beer is huge compared to food. (yes I know for certain)
This will most certianlly place some additional burden on local law enforcemnt - and the liquor enforcment people as well as they fairly routinely run stings at retailers. (attemped buys by minors or others that should have their ID checked) That "threat" of getting dinged with a big fine is what keeps the small liquor stores and bars in line with the law.
IT already is a requirement for anyone who is in a bar drinking or purchasing to have their ID ON them. Even if they are known to the bartender or retail clerk (this might be by city or county not sure if this is a state law ... ) It is not routienly followed enforced. I don't think that has cut down significantlly on minors drinking and buying booze.
No one has yet ansewerd who will bennefit, other that the big box retailers and the minor conveneice of a few ... Wonder why?
January 24, 2008
4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
JM
Your advocating central economic control?
Like the former USSR....
Dang has this simple subject gotten complicated...
January 24, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Why does there need to be a compelling enough reason for you to justify the lifting of a silly, pointless, out-dated rule? Correction of an error is justification in and of itself. A business owner should have the freedom to conduct business any hours that he chooses, on any days he chooses.
Incidentally, Target does sell liquor, and while I might buy occasionally if I'm there and in a pinch for time, I find their selection leaves something to be desired. I have my favorite stores, and that rare purchase at Target doesn't take much from them. I suspect the same will be true for most of us even when the Big (LOL) "Multinational" Grocers like Kings and Safeway start offering. Especially if my favorite stores are open for business on Sunday. More choice is better.
January 24, 2008
5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Because there are GOOD points for NOT doing it!
you are just too blind and too selfish to even consider them.
Waaa Waaaa Waaaaaaa
like all of the other young punk, spoiled brats who want what they want, Their way and want it now... and are to self- important to see any other persons point of view.
Waaa Waaaaaaa
I guess you think we should just change anything, anytime, whenever anyone says change it? (make it suit me! Waaaa)
Change for the sake of change is STUPID!
There should be compelling or at least arguable reasons to make changes - If Something works why fix it?
NO one here today has given one even half decent good reason for wanting to let groceries and Wal-Marts and whoever else for selling liquor, and no one has present even a half decent argument against who would it benniffit OTHER than the stores who are pushing to change the law, AND maybe the pockets of a few law makers....and of course the mere convenience of those are un-willing to THINK and too inconvenienced to make one more stop at a local liquor store to buy their alcohol.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaa waaa wa
Here's a hanki - go wipe you nose!
January 24, 2008
5:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
ISKIFREELY writes:
Can they pass this in time for the Super Bowl? Isn't that the real question here? Football and beer, America's pastime!
January 24, 2008
8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
generalsn1234567 writes:
Here in Chicago we have both. Liquor stores are more convenient by not having to wait in long checkout lines for one or two 6 packs, and we can purchase alcoholic beverages late, after the grocery stores are closed. Some are half liquor store, half bar. The new smoking ban has increased their business since more people are drinking at home now.
January 24, 2008
10:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
barney7 writes:
That's just what we need - more liquor sales at more convenient places! Doesn't matter where. Just keep that liquor flowing. There probably should not only be access to liquor on every corner of every street in every neighborhood in the Denver Metro Area, but they should place various convenient liquor stops, including grocery stores, on the highways and interstates! It should be so accessible ALL THE TIME--EVERYWHERE! Keep those drinkers drinking and happy--and driving with no inhibitions. But, those dirty, awful disgusting smokers! Let's be sure to take all of their rights (of choice) away from them. They are so offensive!
January 25, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Sam-
That's a bummer that grocery stores would impact your business, but... that's the price we pay in a free market economy. You say that the big chains will have a "monopoly" but isn't that what you have now? You ADMIT, that the chains will be able to sell to the consumer at a lower price, and isn't that the whole point of a free-market? The company that can offer the best goods/services at the best price succeeds?
REALLY, this isn't about liquor. This is about common sense laws and regulations that impact consumers of this state -- who clearly far outnumber business owners.
Sam, you can still succeed, but you WILL have to adapt and modify your business plan. Be creative and smart -- that's what EVERY OTHER business owner in this country has to do to succeed -- why should you be any different?
January 25, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
sam80241 writes:
JB:
Tell that to all the people that lost there jobs to china, we offer as small business owner more jobs than any other corporates in the US , we do not send jobs overseas. Wake up and smell the roses.
Block buster run alot of 99C movie rental out of the market , then they raise there prices to $4.79
per rental.
By the way, the standard textbook definition of "monopoly" is when a signle corporate entity has control over an entire industry. Free market liquor sales mean there is competition between local business owners; not companies with deep pockets who want control over ALL the market. All money from the sales would be taken in by one coporate entity, not 1500 independant business owners.
January 25, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Sam-
Tell what to the people who lost their jobs to China? For that matter to India or Mexico? It's an illogical comparison...I doubt that we'll suddenly have to outsource liquor sales overseas... good ol' American workers will still be selling booze.
You also shot your own argument in the foot. If the grocery stores can sell alcohol... all the sales will not go to a single corporation...Safeway, Target, Cosco, Albertsons, King Soopers...ALL different companies... AND nobody is proposing a law that you can't try to compete with them -- where now there is a law that says these companies -- all of which have successful liquor sales in other markets -- are being told by law that they cannot compete with you. You are being unfairly protected at the expense of the consumer.
January 25, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
sam80241 writes:
JB: There are many liquor stores to choose from ? some of the supermarket already sells liquor if you like to shop there god bless you. We are not in favor of have multiple licenses per corporation.
That will add more than #4000 new liquor store in colorado . Your local grocery store has problems keeping cough medicines from minors. what makes you think they will have more protection against minors.
PS. Stick to your 9-5 job then when your job go somewhere else you can go and work with another big corporate. The big problem with most people its only about them .ME ME ME ME ME ME
as long its better for you screw every one else. SAD
January 25, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
telerider writes:
Lobbyists/special interest groups who are not for full disclosure are not presenting all of the facts…just the ones they want you to hear.
A key factor overlooked in Mr. Fillion's article and not mentioned so far is that Sen. Shaffer’s proposed legislation GRANTS AN EXCEPTION TO GROCERY CHAINS NOT OFFERED TO THE REST OF THE INDUSTRY and has buried it on the 5th page of his bill. Sen. Shaffer’s legislation runs counter to the rest of Colorado's Liquor Code precedent of one license, one location. Currently, all retail liquor licensees are prohibited from holding interest in other liquor licenses and are restricted to one location. Currently, all retail liquor licensees are restricted to one type of product, beverages in sealed, packaged containers. Is it legal to legislate into law an unfair competitive advantage?
The current bill excludes smaller grocery chains and “mom & pops” by requiring a licensed on-site pharmacy (an investment of well over $100,000/yr); and it excludes non-grocery chains (Target, Wal-mart, etc.) and big box liquor stores (Applejack’s Daveco, Lukas) by requiring 51% of revenues to be from grocery sales that INCLUDE fresh meat & produce. The current bill is discriminatory and reeks of special interest favoritism.
To be fair, if you allow grocery chains to sell beer and wine, then re-write this bill to allow all retail liquor licensees to sell groceries and have multiple locations. That is free market.
Secondly, being open on Sundays is a consumer convenience but comes at an expense. Studies in states that have converted to seven day sales cite negligible sales increases. Let’s break down the “estimated” revenue increase of $23 - $32 million (cited in the article) by the 1600 liquor licensees in Colorado. The 14% increase in staffing costs alone (to cover the additional day) averages $196/day. While net revenue (using industry standard margin of 22-25%) averages $90/day. Meaning every Sunday the average retailer will lose $106 or $5500/year.
The convenience comes at an expense. Unfortunately, that expense will be disproportionately shouldered by your local small retailer.
For the sake of full disclosure, I am one of those small retailers. I am for a consumer driven, free market system.
However, I am not for legislation that is deceptive and discriminatory. This bill is politics at its worst.
January 25, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Sam-
Did I strike a nerve? Wow, what a horrible response. First of all, you assume I work for a big corporation...that's funny. Nobody has passed a law that says big corporations can't compete with me...and they do! A lot of them. I build and keep clients because I'm very good at what I do and I know how to market myself and my services well...and am able to deliver great service. I also make sure that my bill-rate is on par or lower than what the big firms charge. BUT...I have to work very hard to build business, and I accept that as a part of doing busines.
So tell me, why should you be offered special protection for your business? Should our Reps. pass a law that says the big firms are not allowed to compete with me?
January 25, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Telerider-
I agree... open the bill to allow EVERYONE to have multiple locations and let the liquor stores sell food. Also, get rid of the stupid Pharmacy clause. You're right...there should be a level (policy wise) playing field.
As far as the convenience coming at a price... what price to the average consumer?
January 25, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Dan2-
Damn, talk about an angry person. We are on the same side, but is it really necessary to resort to personal attacks and name calling? It's a little counter-productive.
January 25, 2008
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
telerider writes:
JB-
Just like any other industry where costs rise, the effects will eventually be passed on to the consumer in some manner. It is a variable that will be absorbed on a case by case basis...perhaps slightly higher prices, fewer product options, a lower level of service, perhaps traveling a greater distance to find the product you want. Perhaps nothing at all. At this point, everything is conjecture.
January 25, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Telerider-
I disagree that the there will be a price to the consumer. Lower prices and convenience...those are benefits.
The respectable liquor stores will stay in business, simply due to the variety they offer as well as good service.
I think that you are being a little disingenuous...as the owner of a small liquor store, perhaps you are concerned with YOUR business... not what's best for your customers...so when you are talking about the "price" you are really talking about the price paid by you.
I do agree with you though...they need to remove the crap about needing a pharmacy and allow you little guys to open multiple locations to be fair.
January 26, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
BirdonaWire writes:
Biblethumpers.........
You want to limit alcolhol to 6 days a week? I propose we make that day Wednesday. Really. Wednesday is an important day. The middle of the week and still two days left to work, this is no time spend at the liquor store. There's work to be done! Buckle down. So that would free up Sunday for liquor sales. How's that sound?
February 4, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
alcambell_9 writes:
All this confusion and bickering about finding an answer to who can sell beer, wine and liquor and when they can sell it by the legislature reminds me of the old Keystone Cops films. But if they are really looking for an answer that is fair, what about bars and taverns selling beer,wine and liquor to go? After all, are they not owned by taxpaying citizens of Colorado and have they not suffered economic losses due to the smoking ban? If the powers that be want to give any business an even chance, give Colorado owned bars and taverns a way to recover at least some of the money they have lost due to the ban. Big Grocery stores are owned by huge out of state corporations for the most part, so why should they be favored over the locally owned bars and taverns that have existed for generations as taxpaying small businesses, contributors to many charities and that assure the economic wellbeing of their and their employess families in Colorado. Many other sates allow that, and no harm is done by it.
And if legislators want that tired old adage about a " level playing field ", ( which is nothing but a weasel worded phrase that means making all small businesses, such as bars and taverns, suffer the same economic losses equally ), to be effective, then you must allow all like kind businesses the same freedom. Freedom does not exist when favor is given to some prefered businesses and not others of the same ilk.
However, I can anticipate the tobacco control advocate's opposition to that answer. Their ultimate agenda would seem to be bent on destroying mom and pop, working man's, neighborhood bars and taverns, at least that is, in part, the results of their efforts. The scary stuff in all that endevor is it was initiated as an almost devine quest to eliminate smokers, as a class of human beings, from the face of the planet. This was done by those who ventured out on that quest, thinking they are superior in every way to those who smoke or ever have smoked and, by that definition, they include all members of the U.S. Armed Forces throuhgout our history as a country and even before that who smoked and fought and died for the freedom, justice and liberty that all Americans hold dear, which also might eliminated as a result of their blindness to the consequences of their zeal.
Allen Campbell
Senior V.P.
Coalition for Equal Rights
February 5, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
gabbymay writes:
What you all are missing is that the liquor law falls under the Blue Law which includes all vehicle sales as well, cars, boats, motorcycles, recreational vehicles. This covers a huge area of our population. On a personal note, I for one am against the repeal. Why? Because my husband works in the RV industry. My kids will never see my husband for a full day again through the school year if this passes. He will be forced to work Saturday and Sunday. He already misses all of their sports games, no more quick sunday ski trips, no more church as a family, no more watching the big game with Dad or just hangin out for the day. I realize this sounds like a sob story but it is the reality of our family life, going down the toilet. So if you have the pleasure of being able to spend the weekend with your family, have pity on those of us that don't and call your state representative and say NO!