Question #1 on the 2006 Massachusetts ballot regards the sale of wine by "food stores." The proposed law is being advocated by Grocery Stores and Consumers for Fair Competition; I'm not sure where the consumers fit in, precisely, but the organization's $3.5-million dollar bankroll is almost entirely financed by Stop & Shop, Shaw's, Big Y, and Hannaford, all big names in the big-box grocery business. Even specialty grocers like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods have invested into this matter, too. They're unhappy because current legislation limits businesses to a maximum of three liquor licenses within the state. A YES vote will allow additional wine-only liquor licenses to be created, proportional to the population of the city. A NO vote maintains the 3-license limit.

Here in the Commonwealth, we often snicker about our infamous blue-laws; the puritanical throwbacks that persist in this liberal bastion. We don't have to think back too far to a time when the liquor stores were closed on Sundays. Certainly, some shoppers would find it convenient to be able grab a bottle of wine or two at Shaw's while picking up the ingredients for dinner, further fulfilling that (somewhat lazy) dream of "one-stop shopping." But who would oppose this Utopian ideal? Angry pilgrim-wannabes, stomping their shiny-buckled shoes with righteous indignation as their amusing black hats wilt from all the sinning going on? Dusty relics from the prohibition era who fear that Shaw's will become a giant, florescent-lit speakeasy, rife with drunken cavorting?

No, it's actually the Massachusetts Package Stores Association, which is, unsurprisingly, an association of package stores in Massachusetts. Needless to say, they clearly fear a loss of wine business should the bill pass, and they also fear that the legislation paves the way for future sales of beer or liquor in grocery stores. They would probably nutshell the situation as yet another battle between big vs. small business; Wal-Mart isn't involved in this one (...yet), but it's the same sort of fear that a specialized industry will be crushed by the Wal-Mart-ization of their particular trade. That's certainly the crux of the issue, although this group so tried to suggest other consequences to the bill passing: if you believe that package store employees are better trained than grocery store employees, then you might buy into the idea that package stores sell less booze to minors or intoxicated customers. I could actually believe that, when I think of the shrewd folk working at Julio's Liquors in Westborough, compared to the slack-jawed youths that can't ring up an artichoke because they've never seen one before.

I say "no" on Question #1. Few will be surprised to learn that my sudden advocacy for small wine sellers is related largely to my concern for the beer market. You might think that local brewers would be chomping at to have their wares on a Stop & Shop end-cap, but that's not the case. Todd Marcus, the owner and brewmaster of Cape Cod Beer, raises some interesting points in his argument against the proposed legislation:

Quote:

The small mom and pop package stores are businesses just like ours. Family run, working hard to pay their employees, their benefits, their insurance and taxes. They live in our communities - heck our kids play soccer and hockey together. Most of them are helpful hardworking people who would happily track down that special brand or vintage for you. Some even call you when the products you like come into the store. These are the same people who have readily taken our product on and squeezed it into their already crowded fridges. They choose to carry local products, and when you go there to buy or sell something you can actually meet with the owner (in most cases). Will you get that same service from a supermarket or convenience store?

It's hard for small businesses to make it, period - never mind on Cape Cod. So, we're thinking locally - about our friends at Parker's, the Wine List, Cape Cod Package Store, Cotuit Liquors, Windmill Liquors, Patriot Spirits, and Luke's Liquors, just to name a few. We're thinking about supporting those people who have supported us - and we're voting NO to Question 1.

So, yeah, Shaw's won't be selling bombers of oak-aged Arrogant Bastard anytime soon, but it's a fact that sales catering to the.. er.. average alcohol palate (...not so good stuff) gives stores like Austin and Julio's the breathing room to stock the good stuff on the shelves and to take chances with new products. A lot of states let grocery stores sell booze, and smaller stores don't survive because of it. Visit those "liberated" states and you'll find that selection has suffered to benefit availability. As Marvin Simpson of Boulder Beer (a brand available at good Massachusetts packies) says:

Quote:

If anyone has been to "those" states and been by the beer section there are are zero craft beers on the shelves. I'm referring to my most recent visited states. NY, NH, GA, NC. Ok, there might be Sam... Pete's, etc... there [are] no smaller regional breweries on the shelves... Boulder Beer numbers here in MA are incredible... We and many others would not have this kind of growth if this was a chain driven state. States like MA are great for the growth and advocation of craft beer.

So, if you wanted a more practical reason for a NO vote, besides defending Mom-n-Pop from Evil Corporation, there you go. Selection, and growth of the industry. You could accuse me of being alarmist for suggesting that wine-selling licenses will harm the craft beer industry, but I don't think it's that far of a leap. And I nonetheless would like to see specialty shops like Highland Street's Wine Vine survive in their communities.

Both sides are trying to suggest that this is not about money and sales. Obviously, it is. But I personally get a hearty chuckle from the Grocery Stores' argument: "...a 72-year old law prevents most grocery stores from selling wine--and creates a virtual monopoly for package stores. How several thousand separate and privately owned businesses constitute a monopoly is beyond me.