The wine (and spirits) superstore makes its 1183-inspired appearance in late June.
Posted by: Allecia Vermillion on May 02, 2012 at 10:30AM0 Comments
Bellevue, many, many aisles of wine, beer, and hard alcohol are in your future. Photo via Total Wine and More.
We are four weeks away from June 1, that nebulously ominous or exciting date when liquor sales as we know them undergo an overnight transformation. The state Liquor Control Board has been flooded with applications from Targets, QFCs, and Safeways, and (obviously) Costco. Big booze box BevMo! recently announced it will open stores in Tacoma and Silverdale.
Now Bellevue is getting a liquor superstore of its own. Delaware-based chain Total Wine and More has announced plans to open in the former Larry’s Market location at 699 120th Ave. The 30,000-square-foot space will start plying Eastsiders with the drink in late June.
As the name suggests, Total Wine and More isn’t just a place to pick up handles of Smirnoff. The company bills itself as the nation’s largest independent retailer of fine wines, with a selection of more than 8,000 (along with 3,000 types of spirits and 2,500 beers). The Bellevue store, the company’s 81st location, will have a walk-in humidor, climate-controlled storage for rarer bottles, and a space for tastings.
Posted by: Christopher Werner on Nov 09, 2011 at 09:33AM0 Comments
Voters approve 1183, bringing booze to grocery stores starting in June. Photo courtesy chicagonow.com.
Weeks ago the polls had I-1183 retaining a slight edge among Washingtonians, and on Tuesday the liquor privatization bill maintained that lead. The measure passed with 60 percent of the vote.
Under the Costco-backed bill—campaigning for which topped out at over $22 million—Washington State will no longer have a role in the booze business. Private retailers larger than 10,000 square feet will take over sales of hard liquor. According to the Seattle Times the number of merchants expected to sell spirits will jump from 328 to 1,428. Nine hundred state workers—the majority of them employees of state-operated stores—are expected to lose their jobs as a result of the switchover, the Times also reported.
Independent retailers will begin shelving liquor on June 1, 2012.
A sampling of answers from spirit makers around Washington.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Oct 06, 2011 at 11:49AM0 Comments
A test still at Sun Liquor distillery
Photo: Jessica Voelker
As part of an upcoming project, Seattle Met intern Brian Colella and I asked licensed Washington distilleries about their opinions regarding the Costco-backed liquor privatization measure I-1183, upon which Washingtonians will vote this November.
Many distilleries mentioned their concern about the initiative’s stipulation that a retailer “must have ten thousand square feet or more of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure in order to get a license to sell liquor, with limited exceptions.”
We asked the distillers: “Do you or would you support liquor privatization initiative 1183?” (Anonymity was promised).
Here is a sampling of their answers:
“The 10,000 square foot rule is the main problem with this initiative.”
“I’m ambivalent. One downside is the 10,000 square foot minimum retail license rule who prohibit any small new specialty liquor stores from being able to open. More so than grocery stores, it’s the specialty stores that will be interested in stocking our product.”
“Clearly this initiative is not to allow privatization for the sake of getting the state out of the business, but….to allow a few private big fish to take over.”
" …much of the advertising against the initiative is based on red herrings about teen access to alcohol rather than the real issues. The actual proposal is more about who controls and profits from sales, and this measure differs from last year’s in having more language about alcohol law enforcement and about ensuring state revenues. However, the 10,000 square foot requirement is odd on its face…."
“We are undecided at this time.”
“I’d rather see the current system restructured as opposed to putting the distribution into the hands of a few private entities. Tiny distilleries aren’t likely to have the same access that they currently enjoy through the WSLCB.”
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Sep 21, 2011 at 10:17AM0 Comments
Here’s Britney at a liquor store with her sunglasses on. (“So, lahk, y’all can’t recognize me and stuff.”)
A month and a half ahead of Election Day, and total moneys raised on both sides of liquor privatization are already approaching last year’s numbers, Publicola reported Tuesday.
The deep-pocketed, private-liquor-initiative-loving Costco has contributed five million dollars to the cause, about 96 percent of total funds raised in favor of I-1183, the privatization initiative upon which we will vote this November.
But Protect Our Communities—that’s what the anti-privatization people are calling themselves—beat out the big-box chain, raising $6.1 million via contributions from interested parties like Hood River Distillers and Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America.
So together, that adds up to 11.1 million bucks spent for and against privatization this year so far. The total amount raised last year to promote and defeat Costco’s I-1100 was $15 million.
Get ready for familiar arguments for and against liquor privatization.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Sep 08, 2011 at 10:00AM1 Comments
As you have likely heard by now, Costco’s back with a new initiative, I-1183, aimed at kicking the state out of the booze business.
In the new privatization plan, only retailers larger than 10,000 square feet would be eligible to sell spirits. Licensed private distributors would take over the state-run system, paying the state 10 percent of their gross spirit revenues in their first two years of operation and five percent after that. Retail outlets and distribution facilities would be auctioned off to private bidders.
Like Costco’s 2010 initiative I-1100, I-1183 also proposes removing the ban on bulk discounts currently imposed on wineries and wine retailers.
Expect extensive coverage of this sticky spirits situation here on Sauced. Meantime, enjoy the ad, one of the first in what is certain to be a barrage of misleading messages on both sides of the issue.
The Seattle P.I.brings word
that starting Friday, July 1, all 166 Washington State liquor stores will keep the same hours. Those hours: 10am through 9pm Monday through Thursday and 10am through 10pm Friday and Saturday. There are 58 stores that sell booze on Sundays—even though God or Jesus or someone hates that, at least that’s what I was told growing up in a blue law state. Those will be open from 12pm to 5pm.
The news comes as Costco is revving up its privatization campaign—word on the street is that employees of the big box chain have once again been tasked with collecting initiative signatures in stores. Meanwhile, Governor Gregoire has allowed the liquor control board to explore opportunities to turn over its distribution system to a private bidder.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on May 24, 2011 at 12:00AM0 Comments
Skinny Girl Margarita on shelves at the big boxes? Yes, if Costco has its way.
photo: portfolio.com
Liquor privatization is back: A new initiative filed Friday by Costco and friends proposes that only big-old retail operations—those covering more than 10,000 square feet—be eligible to sell liquor.
This is clearly a response to the anti-privatization campaign last November that focused on the dangers of selling booze at gas stations and convenience stores.
On Saturday, the State senate passed a measure (brokered by Republican Senator Joe Zarelli) allowing the WSLCB to solicit bids from private contractors interested in taking over distribution of booze. The plan is to put the feelers out and see what kind of money can be made by leasing it out. It’s just a toe dip towards privatization, really, but if it turns out the cash is there it could mean major changes in the way liquor makes it way to restaurants, bars and retailers.
Complicated stuff, this. If you find yourself wanting to know more, you can head to Liberty Bar on Capitol Hill this Sunday, May 29. At 12:30pm the bar will host a meeting to discuss the pros and cons of possible changes to our liquor laws.
Different initiatives, same issue. Privatization is back, baby.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Mar 22, 2011 at 01:48PM1 Comments
Katherine Heigl likes her booze the way she likes her men: strong and private*
*I don’t know if anything in that sentence is true.
Photo Courtesy: celebritydis.com
Here we go again. There are two new liquor-privatization ideas floating around in anticipation of the fall ballot next year.
Conservative blogger Stefan Sharkansky, who worked on I-1000,* filed a new initiative on March 18. It proposes, among other things, that only stores that haven’t had a public safety violation in five years be allowed to sell liquor. (As you’ll recall, the anti-privatization people were very successful at scaring the bejesus out of our citizenry about what calamities might ensue should spirits be sold outside the purview of state stores. This part of Sharkansky’s initiative addresses those fears.)
Tacoma businessman Tom Luce, meanwhile, has come up with another privatization idea: private distributors bid to partner with the state “to the tune of $300 million,” reports the Seattle PI.
I’ll be writing more as all this progresses, if for no other reason than it gives me an excuse to post pictures of celebrities in liquor stores. Celebrities in liquor stores! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
From Boardwalk Empire to the fluorescent-lit aisles of your local liquor store, these are the booziest bummers of the year.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Dec 10, 2010 at 10:00AM4 Comments
Frat-tastic and LogorificBrew Masters falls flat.
5. Boardwalk Empire is not about Prohibition’s effect on drinking culture.
Don’t get me wrong. Boardwalk Empire is good television—and the design and costumes are out of this world. Steve Buscemi is too reined in, and I’d love it if the show would zoom in on the characters a little bit more. The only one we truly glimpse up close is the self-flagellating Agent Nelson Van Alden. But still, great actors doing great acting. You can’t argue with that.
My disappointment with Boardwalk Empire is that we don’t really learn much about drinking culture during prohibition. We see rich people got to keep drinking what they wanted, for the most part, with a hiccup here and there. That’s good to know, but what about everybody else? What were they drinking? How did prohibition alter the tastes of the middle and poor classes? Where did they party? Was there an effort to pretend they had stopped drinking? How did basement distillers source their ingredients? I know that Martin Scorsese is a busy man but I have questions, and Boardwalk Empire isn’t answering them.
4. The Four Loko ban missed the point entirely.
The Four Loko story is the perfect parable for our culture’s dysfunctional relationship with alcohol: Forbid it to the young until they go to college, where it is tacitly accepted that they will spend the next three years binge-drinking horrible concoctions behind closed doors. Then, on their 21st birthdays, let them loose into the bars, their only experience with booze being to drink as much of it as cheaply as possible before throwing up or passing out.
When a crew of Central Washington Univeristy kids binged on Four Loko to disastrous effect, the response of their university and the state government was to ban the product, and the FDA declared caffeinated alcoholic beverages (which would presumably include rum and Cokes as well as—tell your Grandpa—Irish coffee) unsafe.
You don’t have to love the idea of Four Loko, or even believe that it should be legal to understand that this is an ineffective way to deal with the problem of binge drinking.
Bad form.
3. Initiative 1105 was a triumph of cynical politics.
It didn’t pass, of course, but it was a bummer that liquor privatization initiative 1105 (the second of the two initiatives, the purported goal of which was to make retail private while keeping the three-tier system in place) even got on the ballot. Authored by out-of-state distributors, I-1105 was a poorly written, lame little initiative which managed to thoroughly clog up the conversation about liquor laws in Washington State.
2. Brew Masters is not No Reservations for beer lovers.
There was always the possibility that Brew Masters would be a show about how Dogfish Head beers were marketed, but I didn’t really see it coming. Since it was created by the same people who make No Reservations, I expected a brewsky equivalent of the excellent Anthony Bourdain series, with Dogfish Head’s Sam Calagione—clearly a talented and genuinely nice guy—traveling the world exploring beer culture.
Alas. Whenever Brewmasters takes a break from directly advertising the beer, it becomes the television equivalent of a really cringey best man’s speech. “Brah, remember the time we put on hip hop costumes and did a rap about brewing beer? That was awesome.”
What do you think? Was that awesome?
1. We still have to buy liquor at state stores.
Okay, whether or not you voted for liquor privatization this November, you must agree that it’s not so much fun to shop in state liquor stores. Smart legislation or Armageddon-inducing disaster law, privatization might have meant quirkily curated liquor boutiques offering a range of products from far and wide. That would have been a good time.
But the moment has passed, right? We need to resign ourselves to the fluorescent lights, jacked-up prices, limited selection, and generally bummer vibe of the state stores.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Nov 04, 2010 at 08:02AM1 Comments
Same old, same old. The State stays in the liquor biz.
Even though their measure was trailing, supporters of liquor privatization initiative 1100 held out hope into yesterday evening. The idea was that not-yet-counted votes in urban King County, where the initiative was proving more popular, would push it through.
But it wasn’t enough. Last night the Associated Pressdeclared I-1100 defeated. “With more than two-thirds of the expected vote counted, Initiative 1100 was losing by more than 73,000 votes, with 52 percent of voters rejecting it.”
The competing privatization initiative, 1105, was far less popular—only 37 percent of voters liked it.
The people have spoken; the state stays in the liquor biz.
But one initiative is out of the race and the other is trailing.
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Nov 03, 2010 at 08:20AM0 Comments
I didn’t want you guys to have to look at that same old photo of a beige state liquor store that accompanies every single blog post about liquor privatization. So here’s Rachel B. buying some booze.
With the no vote around 63 percent at last count, Washington voters seem to have soundly rejected liquor privatization initiative 1105. The measure, backed by out-of-state distributors, would have done away with the liquor tax and privatized retail, but preserved the three-tier system that segregates the manufacture, distribution, and sales of booze.
It’s still too close to call on I-1100. The so-called Costco measure is currently trailing with a no vote of 52 percent, but it might be a few days before we know for sure whether or not it passed, according to a recent report by KUOW News.
If I-1100 passes, Washington state will privatize all liquor stores, allow retailers of beer and wine to stock the hard stuff, and abolish the three-tier system. It would also allow stores to offer discounts for bulk sales. Bulk discounts are prohibited under the current law.
There are some solid public safety reasons to vote no on I-1105 and I-1100. Why advertise with fake ones?
Posted by: Jessica Voelker on Oct 28, 2010 at 01:13PM4 Comments
Let’s be clear about something. If either liquor privatization initiative is passed, any store in the state that now sells beer and wine—including 24-hour stores that sell beer and wine—could be eligible to sell liquor. But it would still be illegal to sell alcohol between the hours of 2am and 6am, no matter how late or early a given emporium chooses to shut down. Haven’t you ever tried to buy wine late-night at a 24-hour grocery store in Seattle and been denied? Er…me neither. But if we had, we would have been sent packing, because a store loses its liquor license if it sells outside legal hours. The concerned mother in the ad below is clearly implying, however, that privatization would mean liquor would be available around the clock. Not true, Concerned Mother.
Secondly, mom says that the initiatives expand liquor sales “to thousands of 24-hour mini-marts and gas stations, where stings by police prove they sell liquor to minors one out of four times.”
I believe that the number that she is referring to is the average noncompliance rate for all states with a private liquor-sales system. Here’s the real statistic: In sting operations conducted in the 32 states with private liquor sales, minors were denied alcohol in 75 percent of cases, on average. So in 1 out of 4 sting operations, a private liquor store failed to deny minors booze. The ad uses a real number, it just construes that real number to make a misleading argument related to 24-hour gas stations and mini-marts.
But here’s the thing. At 94 percent, Washington currently enjoys the highest compliance rate in the country. That’s a very convincing reason, from a public safety perspective, to vote no on privatization. Especially when you compare it to the 75 percent average compliance rate across states with private liquor sales.
Why doesn’t the No campaign use real information to make its argument? I don’t get it.
Editors Allecia Vermillion and Christopher Werner and a crew of contributing barflies report on the latest in openings, happy hours, bartender shuffles, and local liquors.
0 Comments
