News
Anti-Liquor Privatization TV Ad Focuses on Loophole
Lummy has written about the potential loophole in I-1183, Costco's liquor privatization initiative, a couple of times now.
Basically, despite 1183's explicit requirement that qualifying liquor stores be at least 10,000 square feet (language that is meant to address concern that came up during last year's failed liquor privatization initiative campaign that there would be a new mini-mart liquor store on every corner), a clause in 1183 gives the liquor board discretion to allow small stores to sell booze if no other outlets in the "trade area" qualify.
Today, the anti-1183 campaign put a number on the loophole. They contend that 1183 would "allow 929 outlets under 10,000 square feet currently selling beer and wine to sell liquor."
They've got maps and charts to back up their findings and a hard-hitting TV ad featuring teens hustling out of a liquor store into a car with a bottle of booze.
The Olympian cites the potential loophole in its "Vote No" on 1183 editorial yesterday:
Pro-1183 spokeswoman Kathryn Stenger says the 'No' camp "is just making numbers up."
She points out that there's no way for the anti-1183 campaign to know how many stores will get liquor store licenses because after an applicant meets the "trade area" requirement, it's still up to the liquor board to okay the license.
She also flags what she sees as an irony in the opposition's message. "They're okay with the number of stores now," Stenger says of the "scare tactic" opposition, "but there's no limit now, it's up to the board. After 1183 passes, there will actually be limitations in place for the first time."
She says the loophole is a pro-small business provision to allow small businesses in rural areas where there are no big stores to get licenses. "In urban and suburban areas you're going to run into a Safeway or a Trader Joe's and so you won't be able to have liquor stores on every corner."
With both sides having already raised more than $6 million, expect plenty more manipulative commercials. The No camp has already spent $900,000 on TV and radio.
Basically, despite 1183's explicit requirement that qualifying liquor stores be at least 10,000 square feet (language that is meant to address concern that came up during last year's failed liquor privatization initiative campaign that there would be a new mini-mart liquor store on every corner), a clause in 1183 gives the liquor board discretion to allow small stores to sell booze if no other outlets in the "trade area" qualify.
Today, the anti-1183 campaign put a number on the loophole. They contend that 1183 would "allow 929 outlets under 10,000 square feet currently selling beer and wine to sell liquor."
They've got maps and charts to back up their findings and a hard-hitting TV ad featuring teens hustling out of a liquor store into a car with a bottle of booze.
The Olympian cites the potential loophole in its "Vote No" on 1183 editorial yesterday:
Nowhere in the 32-page initiative will you find a specific provision preventing liquor sales at gas stations and convenience stores. In fact, Initiative 1183 opens the door to convenience stores and mini-marts through a poorly crafted exemption.
While it is true that the initiative attempts to limit liquor outlets to retail stores of at least 10,000 square feet, I-1183 creates a huge loophole allowing the state to license smaller outlets where there is no liquor outlet in their “trade area.”
The problem is nowhere in the initiative is there a definition of what constitutes a “trade area.”
Is a trade area 10 blocks or 10 miles? It’s not defined and as a result convenience stores and mini-marts could get a license to sell hard liquor since there is no specific prohibition against them.
That’s a huge – in our mind, fatal – flaw in this initiative, because it creates the potential for multiple liquor outlets in every community across Washington state.
Pro-1183 spokeswoman Kathryn Stenger says the 'No' camp "is just making numbers up."
She points out that there's no way for the anti-1183 campaign to know how many stores will get liquor store licenses because after an applicant meets the "trade area" requirement, it's still up to the liquor board to okay the license.
She also flags what she sees as an irony in the opposition's message. "They're okay with the number of stores now," Stenger says of the "scare tactic" opposition, "but there's no limit now, it's up to the board. After 1183 passes, there will actually be limitations in place for the first time."
She says the loophole is a pro-small business provision to allow small businesses in rural areas where there are no big stores to get licenses. "In urban and suburban areas you're going to run into a Safeway or a Trader Joe's and so you won't be able to have liquor stores on every corner."
With both sides having already raised more than $6 million, expect plenty more manipulative commercials. The No camp has already spent $900,000 on TV and radio.
