Crain's: WINE WAR Under lobbies' influence

My friends, is there no end to what the WIG interests will do to spread lies and deceipt?  This article, published by Crain's, is absolutely filled with threats and innuendo that attempt to silence a supplier partner through intimidation.

As if liquor stores need another reason to support Diagio and their brands?  I have long supported Diagio for thier reasonable quantity discount policy and for all the day-to-day things that they have done to add value to the products they sell.  I, for one, supported them fully before this WIG issue was forced upon the industry.  I have often held thier pricing and discount strategy out to competitive suppliers as a model for the industry to follow.  Diagio has many of the top Marques in the industry and yet they do not force 150 case investments on us retailers like their competitor's do.

Now, Diagio astutely sees the WIG initiative as a danger to their long built customer base here in NY.  They see it as destroying over a thousand liquor store customers and attacking the three tier system which has allowed them to be successful in New York.  They properly see this as bad for thier interests and survival in New York and they wish to contribute both money and moral support to our coalition as a way to protect thier company's customers and interests.  This is not an attempt to influence our purchasing.  What store can grow and prosper without the powerful brands that Diago brings to the market?

No, this is not a breach of any agreements, it is simply a constitutionally protected, and recently affirmed by the US Supreme Court, right of a corporation to act as any citizen would: to spend money to see that thier interests are heard in the realm of political ideas without restriction.  The Supreme court said that a corporation has the same rights as an individual citizen to have their say and let thier opinion be heard.  Who is the state of New York to limit this voice just because they disagree with the message of Diagio?

For shame on Assemblyman Kellner, for trying to bully the opposition into silence.  Well Assemblyman, this is America, and Diagio is a corporate citizen with every right to contribute money and support to any group that is fighting to protect common interests.  Don't abuse the power of your office to intimidate and silence voices you don't agree with.  It is quite a stretch to paint Diagiao's support of the Coalition as a marketing ploy!

The fact that they sell many products to the big box grocery stores not only in New York but across the entire nation shows how hollow this accusation is.  If Diagio was thinking only in terms of influencing sales it would be better for them to NOT support the coalition!  They have much more to lose in the short run by supporting us and alienating the big boys like Costco, Walgreens and 7-Eleven.  But they see this as a long-run issue, and wish to help stop what they see as a bad, three-tier system attack.

If Wegmans, Price Chopper and Wal-Mart can spend millions on lobbiests and consumer advertising why should Diagio be denied the same right.  This is not an issue of marketing influence.  It is an issue of political opinion.  Call off the intimidation tactics and let them protect their customers and long term corporate self interest.

LEADD: STUDY MAKES CASE AGAINST WINE IN GROCERY STORES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Gordy Warnock
(518) 462-7448 or (845) 283-4165

LEADD: STUDY MAKES CASE AGAINST WINE IN GROCERY STORES
New Research Links Neighborhood Violence to Increase in Alcohol Access

ALBANY, NY February 25, 2010 – Law Enforcement Against Drunk Driving (LEADD) Chairman Dan Sisto today renewed his call on the State Legislature to reject Governor Paterson’s plan to legalize wine sales in 19,000 new outlets, citing a new study that links an increase in the number of sites selling alcohol with an increase in neighborhood violence.

The study, released this week by two Indiana University professors, found that more alcohol sales sites in a neighborhood equates to more violence, and the highest assault rates are associated with carry-out sites selling alcohol for off-premise consumption.

Using crime statistics and alcohol outlet licensing data from Cincinnati, Ohio, to examine the spatial relationship between alcohol outlet density and assault density, Department of Criminal Justice professor William Alex Pridemore and Department of Geography professor Tony Grubesic found that off-premise outlets appeared to be responsible for about one in four simple assaults and one in three aggravated assaults, according to a report in Science Daily.

“We have made tremendous progress in improving the safety of our neighborhoods, but more work remains to be done. We should not be adding to our challenges by allowing wine sales in 19,000 new outlets,” Sisto said. “Wine is not a food; it is a controlled substance that is three to four times more potent than beer. New York is right to control the sale of wine by limiting access to wine and liquor stores, which provide a proven method of limiting access to teenagers.

“As a State Trooper, I know that alcohol too often plays a role in crimes in our neighborhoods,” Sisto said. “There is a reason why no state in the nation has adopted this kind of provision in more than 28 years – and that’s because of studies like this that have increased our understanding of the problems associated with alcohol. New York already spends $3.2 billion every year dealing with underage drinking. We must look for ways to reduce underage drinking and protect our teenagers.”

The study’s findings were released at a press briefing entitled “Using Geographic Information Systems and Spatial Analysis to Better Understand Patterns and Causes of Violence,” and were presented as part of the Feb. 18-22 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego, California.

“A higher density of alcohol sales outlets in an area means closer proximity and easier availability to an intoxicating substance for residents,” said Pridemore in Science Daily. “Perhaps just as importantly, alcohol outlets provide a greater number of potentially deviant places. Convenience stores licensed to sell alcohol may be especially troublesome in this regard, as they often serve not only as sources of alcohol but also as local gathering places with little formal social control.”

Using different suites of spatial regression models, the researchers found that adding one off-premise alcohol sales site per square mile would create 2.3 more simple assaults and 0.6 more aggravated assaults per square mile. Increases in violence associated with restaurants and bars were smaller but still statistically significant, with 1.15 more simple assaults created when adding one restaurant per square mile, and 1.35 more simple assaults per square mile by adding one bar.

The study examined 302 geographic block groups that encompassed all of Cincinnati, with each block group containing about 1,000 residents. Block groups are subdivisions of census tracks and represent the smallest unit available for socioeconomic analysis using data from the Census Bureau. Crime statistics from January through June 2008 provided by the Cincinnati Police Department found 2,298 simple assaults and another 479 serious assaults had occurred in the study area during that time. The location of each of these criminal events was geocoded to show the precise location where they occurred.

The researchers, using data from the Ohio Division of Liquor Control for Hamilton County, Ohio, then used the same geocoding techniques to spatially aggregate the city’s 683 unique alcohol sales outlets into those block groups. The arithmetic mean, or average, density of assaults was 69 per square mile, while the average density of alcohol outlets per square mile was 20.

Grubesic said explanations for crime ecological theories like collective efficacy, social disorganization and social cohesion rely on elements like poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, anonymity of community members and willingness to intervene on another's behalf, are difficult to remedy through public policy. That is not the case with alcohol outlet density, he said.

“Alcohol outlet density, on the other hand, is much more amenable to policy changes,” Grubesic pointed out. “Unlike other negative neighborhood characteristics that often seem intractable, regulating the density of outlets, and to some extent their management, can be readily addressed with a mixture of policies by liquor licensing boards, the police and government agencies that regulate land use.”

# # #

Lobby Day 2010 an Outstanding Success Thanks to Broad Industry Involvement

I just returned from Lobby Day in Albany, NY.  By any measure I can think of it has to be considered a resounding success. I don't have the final participant tally, but about 800 coalition members registered to attend, and despite the wintry snowstorm it looked like most, if not all, had made it for the day's events.

Coalition  leader Jeff Saunders announced at the kick off assembly that lobbying history was made by our numbers today.  Never had there been such a large showing by a small business group in a one day, lobbying effort.  I am sure the Capital noticed the hundreds of SOS (Save Our Stores) buttons all over the legislative corridors  today.  The elevator operator for the one in-service lift at "The Egg" had about a dozen pinned on his chest.  Nice touch!

I was a member of one of three Rochester area teams that met with legislators  about the Wine in Grocery issue.  Every single legislator echoed the same observation: they were overwhelmed by the broad origins of our delegation.  They were impressed by the fact that we had not only liquor store owners in the group, but also wineries, wholesale distributors and industry suppliers.  I can't emphasize enough how important that was to the overall success of the day.

Each and every industry member that took the time to come to Albany today has earned the liquor stores' heartfelt gratitude. Your presence made a big impact on the legislators, and may very well be a deciding factor in getting individual legislative support for our cause.

Walgreens bringing back beer, wine

Once considered the largest liquor retailer in the country, Walgreen Co. went dry in almost all of its drugstores about a decade ago after deciding that liquor departments were too unwieldy to manage.

Now the largest U.S. drugstore chain is reversing course. It plans to introduce beer and wine to as many Walgreens stores as possible, spurring resistance among some local communities.

The about-face comes amidst heightened competition with drugstore rival CVS Caremark Corp., which sells alcohol in more than half of its CVS stores nationwide. Those CVS stores include three of the four locations it recently opened as part of a new expansion in the St. Louis market.

Read More >>

Stoned Wino: Constellation still selling wine from convicted supplier, while greasing the skids…

Wow! Here is a story from a wine blogger that does some dot connecting that even I hadn't thought of...

"This is what happens when you buy and drink, cheap, mass produced wines…and it is one of the main reasons why I started Rad Grapes – to give consumers options in purchasing and drinking really great, quality artisanal wines, sourced from real farmers, at a great price point -0therwise, you really don’t know what you are drinking…Pinot Noir for $9 a bottle? Really? I have always told my customers that it is impossible to produce a Pinot Noir at such a price point….and I guess I was right, because it is not real Pinot Noir.

If you are buying wine only based on price point at your local wine shop this is what you end up with – not exactly what you expected and paid for – and that is exactly what NY consumers will end up with if Supermarkets are allowed to sell wine in NY – garbage and plonk at great price points….Good luck with that one, because they are also greasing the political palms in NY, while selling fake wine… what am I talking about?

Victor, N.Y. —
Constellation Brands Inc. denied Thursday that its $25,000 campaign contribution to the re-election of Gov. David Paterson was tied to Paterson’s proposal to allow wine sales in grocery stores. Interesting huh? read more…

So there you have it: selling what amounts to fake, cheap “not Pinot Noir”, while contributing $$$ to the NY Governor and lobbying to push allowing wine sales in supermarkets…Really? There are just so many thing wrong with this story on so many levels, that I don’t know where to begin. Real wines come from farmers and not factories…keep that in mind when shopping for wine next time. Cheers…"

Viticulture 2010

Yesterday, I was one of several speakers at Viticulture 2010, a wine and grape growers conference held in Rochester, NY.  Out of eight industry representatives I was the only liquor store owner on the panel.  The topic was "The Big Issue: Wine in Grocery Stores." Here is a transcript of my presentation:


Viticulture 2010 - Pecoraro

Common Council of Buffalo Opposes A8632 and S5787

Winesales Resolution

The Chamber of Commerce for Grand Island NY Unanimously Opposes the Governor's WIG proposal

2257 Grand Island Blvd.

Grand Island, NY 14072

Phone: 716-773-3651

Fax: 716-773-3316

www.gichamber.org

February 17, 2010


Governor David A. Paterson
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224


Dear Governor Paterson:

The Chamber of Commerce of Grand Island, New York Board of Directors’ voted unanimously to join in the fight against allowing wine to be sold in grocery and convenient stores on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at their monthly board meeting.

The Grand Island Chamber of Commerce is organized for the purposes of advancing the economic, industrial, professional, cultural and civic welfare of Grand Island; to encourage the growth of existing industries and businesses, while giving all proper assistance to any new firms or individuals seeking to locate in Grand Island; to support all of these activities believed to be beneficial to the community and the area and, in general, to promote the welfare of all area citizens following always those policies intended to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number.

If this becomes law, many small businesses will be forced to close their doors, costing the state thousands of valuable jobs. New York already leads the nation in job losses, and we can't imagine why the state would sanction a proposal that makes things worse.

Plus, this proposal would make it much easier for teenagers to get access to alcohol. New York wine sellers are small businesses whose licenses are revoked if they fail to prevent youth from purchasing alcohol. Grocery stores cannot manage this risk as effectively. New York would become like Florida, California and Texas, where wine is sold everywhere and where three times as many kids under 21 die each year from alcohol-related incidents.

Our state has felt enough pain. We urge you to act immediately to kill this proposal.



Sincerely,



______________________________
Grand Island Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors
Chamber President, John L. Bonora

Just Follow the Money

Here is an interesting article that shows the re-election campaign accounts of several local politicians. Please note that Morelle ($511,433.00) and John ($116,241.00) are both on the record as supporting Wegman's and the WIG initiative.  Amazingly, they are #1 and #2 on this list for the Assembly.  Click on the Images to see a larger, more readable view.

Council members back anti-grocery store wine sales resolution

Buffalo's Common Council is sending the message to Albany that the Queen City will not back Governor David Paterson's proposal to allow wine sales in grocery stores. YNN's Nicki Mayo has details on how the measure would impact area wine and liquor stores.

Read More Here >>

Duncan Ross : Keep wine out of grocery stores ~ Proposal will reduce selection and hurt smaller wineries

By Duncan Ross
SPECIAL TO THE NEWS

New York State government is exceptionally creative when it comes to imposing new fees to increase revenue. This year’s budget is no exception, including all sorts of new ways to gather more dollars from taxpayers throughout the state.

One such idea is to put wine sales alongside beer sales in mini-marts, gas stations and grocery stores. This proposal would have wine merchants go the way of butchers, bakers, dry cleaners and independent pharmacies. Very few of these once-independent businesses survived after grocery chains offered the services in their stores.

As the owner of a New York winery, I am very concerned about the effect this proposal will have on the sale of New York wines, because I feel it will disproportionately reduce the number of outlets for that wine.

While on the surface it appears that wine in grocery stores would be beneficial to consumers and wineries, this is not the case. Selection of wine would be reduced and sales for smaller wineries will suffer, meaning the smaller wineries will not be able to grow into larger wineries.

Constellation replies to the $25,000 donation (WIG-GATE)

Here is Constellation's official spin on the Albany Times Union story that disclosed their campaign  contribution to Governor Paterson (My comments in parenthesis):

Constellation’s contributions to the governor were not, in any way, connected with the wine in grocery stores issue, or any other specific issue.

(Excuse me.  No one I know gives away $25,000 without expecting something in return! Everyone knows that Governor Paterson has zero chance of getting his party's nomination, much less getting elected.  That being the case, why would anyone give him any money unless they wanted something he could deliver before he retires? Just a thought.)

Various Rochester community leaders organized a fundraiser for the governor in Rochester on January 12. Constellation was asked to participate in this event as a co-sponsor, which we agreed to do
because we support many of the governor’s policies and programs during these difficult economic times.

(Ah, so it is pay for play, but you just don't want to list what it is you are paying for.)

The contributions had been planned for at least a month before the fundraiser.

(I'd say that would be just about the time that rumors of WIG being back in the budget came out.)

A donation to the governor's election campaign should not, in any way, be construed as a vote for or against any provisions of his budget.

(See my first comment.  He's not going to be elected. Game over.)

In the past, our elected officials have considered the issue of allowing wine to be sold in grocery stores and, now, as in the past, we remain neutral on the issue.

(Now this one really burns me. I do a ton of business with this company annually, and this is how they thank me: by staying neutral while Paterson and the big box stores plot to put me out of business.  I, for one, think this "neutral" thing is a cop-out.  On this point, Constellation, you need to come out clearly in support of your present customers.)

When it comes to industry issues, it is our policy to work through trade associations, such as DISCUS and Wine Institute.

(Well the Coalition for the Last Main Street Store is another trade association too.  And many of your competitors like Diagio and Bacardi have contributed to it.  Even Southern Wine & Spirits, your exclusive New York wholesaler, has contributed to our cause.  They don't have a problem with 'remaining neutral.')

Constellation supports our distributor and retail partners and will continue to work with them no matter what the outcome of this debate is.

(Read: we'll make money from anyone, we're not proud or particular.  Come to think of it, since we own all the top wine labels on the planet in the supermarket price points we stand to gain quite a bit by having wine in big box stores.  That's because our competitors won't even make the cut.  We will own the shelf space just like Proctor & Gamble owns the toothpaste shelf.)

Cheryl Gossin
VP, Corporate Communications
Phone: 585-678-7191
Mobile: ***-957-****

207 High Point Drive, Building 100
Victor, New York 14564

 Family scrapbook

 

Danny,  Mrs. W., Sands

Timing of gift raises doubts - Liquor distributor gave to Paterson campaign before wine sales plan (timesunion.com)

By CHRIS CHURCHILL, Business writer
First published in print: Thursday, February 11, 2010

ALBANY -- Gov. David Paterson received $25,000 in campaign contributions from a large liquor-industry distributor shortly before he announced his plan to allow the sale of wine in grocery stores.

The donations were all recorded Jan. 11, eight days before he unveiled the wine plan as part of his proposed budget. The five $5,000 contributions came from subsidiaries of Constellation Brands, a Rochester-area company. And some of those subsidiaries have big names in the wine world -- like Franciscan Vineyards and Robert Mondavi Corp.
Richie Fife, spokesman for Paterson's re-election effort, on Wednesday said Constellation has a long history of contributing to campaigns, and he said there is no connection between the governor's announcement and the donations.

Eric Thomas, spokesman for Constellation, said the same. He added that the company, which also distributes beer and liquor, is officially neutral on the wine-in-grocery-store proposal.

But for some people, the timing and size of the Constellation contributions raise concern.

American Association of Wine Economists | Working Paper No. 48

For those of you who haven't read it, I present the AAWE Working Paper No. 48 on the impact of selling wine in grocery stores on existing New York liquor stores' wine sales volume.  It is some people's opinion that this research is bogus and fatally flawed in design and execution.  See that topic here.

AAWE_WP48

UFCW Local One sent this letter to Governor Patterson about his job killing proposal to ammend the laws to allow wine sales in grocery stores:
Local One Ltr to Paterson

UFCW Local 1500: No to Patterson's Job Killing WIGS Proposal

Union Letter

One Person's Opinion of Bradley Rickard and the New York Farm Bureau

I have been following a lively discussion of a Buffalo News Guest editorial in which a commenter using the name "aggieheaven" makes some very powerful statements about Bradley Rickard and his research.  Mr. Rickard is the author of the economics study that through simulation models predicts that liquor stores in New York will loose 17% to 32% of thier wine business to the proposed 19,000 new grocery wine outlets.  Of course, since this is all anonymous, I have no way of knowing if these statements are true or not, but I print them here for you to consider for yourselves.  Please remember that these were extracted from over 60 comments in the discussion thread.  You may want to read the entire thread to get a better idea what comments he is reacting to and what other persons have said.

---------------------------------------------------

"I've read the good professor's report. It is bogus research. Given I own a Master in Marketing Science and work as a Senior Executive in the data and analysis industry, I am an expert with credentials to question his study. What are your credentials.

The good professor used data from 40 years ago, didn't account for economic environment change and applied no variant to account for negative impact of big box retail that has been researched and document by numerous institutions.

Despite every attempt to massage his forecast, he still came up with a 32% loss in sales for liquor store. The number is more likely 50%-60% when factoring in big box retail impact with their lobbying efforts for tax breaks from government that aren't afforded to small business.

Last year, Wal-Mart received $2 Billion in tax subsidies from taxpayers. Do you not understand how this impacts fair competition and negatively impacts the principles of capitalism when the big and powerful get breaks mom and pop don't receive.

I am not against wine in groceries. I am against the ongoing destruction of our economy by eliminating small business so companies like Wegmans can increase their profits while not hiring one new employee.

You get Dan Wegman to give back the tax breaks and end his expedition to repeal the Death Tax, I am happy to give him the wine. Unfortunately, he won't agree to this because given back the millions in tax breaks won't be offset by wine sales.

I just want to see liquor store be given an even playing field. This proposal doesn't provide for this until Wegmans gives back the tax breaks."

---------------------------------------------------

"The New York Farm Bureau is lobbyist firm that doesn't represent the wine growers or liquor stores. They are funded by grocery stores. This is not an independent third party. It is a propaganda arm of the grocery stores and they spend millions of the ill-gotten taxpayer proceeds on false advertising. They are nothing more than a front for Wegmans to do the dirty work.

Grocery stores that evade paying taxes are horrible companies. Grocery stores that only allow employees to work 29 hours to evade health insurance costs and pass them on to the taxpayers are horrible companies. Owners of grocery stores that lobby Congress to repeal the Death Tax and pass the cost onto their customers are horrible companies.

Tell me why any company that pads their bottom line with tax breaks and eliminates jobs should get anything more from the NYS taxpayers?

Wake up and smell the coffer Suarez. Its companies like Wegmans that are helping destroy the NYS economy."

Erie County urges state to rejects wine sales in grocery stores

NEW YORK - The Erie County Legislature voted unanimously, Friday, to adopt a resolution urging the New York State Senate and New York State Assembly to reject Governor Paterson’s plan to legalize the sale of wine in grocery stores, gas stations, delis, bodegas and anywhere beer is now sold.

If implemented, this change would force more than 1,000 stores to close and cost the state more than 4,500 valuable jobs. Additionally, the sale of wine in every store where beer is now available would give teenagers greater access to alcohol – resulting in a heightened risk of underage drinking and fatal drunk driving accidents.

In its resolution against the plan, the Erie County Legislature says the proposal will have detrimental impacts for the state including unemployment, lost income tax and emptied retail space.

According to an economic impact study completed for the industry prior to the collapse of the state’s economy, nearly 40 percent of the wine stores in the state would be forced out of business if the sale of wine were legalized in every deli, corner store, gas station, bodega and grocery store in New York. As a result, more than 4,500 people would be forced out of work in the worst economy the state has experienced in generations.

“We applaud the Erie County Legislature for once again rejecting the Governor’s plan which would only put more people in our state’s unemployment lines and increase the availability of alcohol to teenagers,” said Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street coalition and president of the Retailers Alliance. “We are confident that the State Legislature will reject this misguided proposal as they did last year, saving thousands of jobs of hardworking New Yorkers and protecting our state’s teenagers.”

As reported by EmpireStateNews.net

The industry responds to the New York Times

The New York Times published a pro wine-in-grocery editorial the other day and industry members are responding to it.  I will post some of them here for your consideration.

Here is the response of Ed Wassmer, owner of the retail store Young's Fine Wines & Spirits:

Your editorial on Feb. 4 titled “Some Wine With That?” was remarkable in that, in five short paragraphs, it contained more innuendo, illusion, allusion, and plain old misstatement than I’ve ever before seen in such a short piece.

From the top, I’ve no reason to doubt that almost 600 towns have no liquor store upstate.  Newsflash – many towns in rural New York have no supermarket, movie theater, nail salon or four star French bistro, either.  I think your writer should also know that many rural inhabitants like their elbow room, sans retail over-saturation, and are not pining for a mall near them anytime soon.   

Re your writer’s killing of two entities with one wild assertion, New York, like all other states in the Union, created their liquor control laws when Prohibition was repealed in order to provide their citizens with a controlled environment for the safe importation, distribution and controlled sale of alcohol.  The laws (and by the way, there’s more than one), were definitely not written “in true Albany fashion” to “protect the interests of one powerful industry”.  Have the laws succeeded in their aim of providing safety and control?  Actually, more so than your writer could ever imagine – New York’s alcohol related driving fatality rate is one quarter of California’s.   

Moving on, your writer is only guessing when stating that Gov. Paterson’s main interest in changing the liquor laws is budgetary.  The Governor has been advised by his own Law Revision Commission that the economic consequences are not understood and the legislature told him last year that the idea was a job killer with potential losses greater than the fees he hoped to attain.   

Lastly, your writer claims that the “bill” would “provide consumers more choice”.  Not to nitpick, but the Governor has no bill – the notion of allowing big box stores to carry wine is a line item in his proposed budget.  Regarding providing consumers more choice, sorry to be the bearer of good news, but, your writer is mistaken - again.  New York currently has over twenty-two thousand wines in distribution throughout the state.  Compare this, for instance, to Florida, where wine is sold in big box stores, but, less than seven thousand wines are available to consumers. 

Besides limiting consumer choice, destroying an entire industry, and, submitting New Yorkers to greater peril on their highways and roads, I think the Governor’s proposal has a bigger problem.  Promoting a more than eight fold increase in the number of outlets purveying wine, when the consequences in states with unfettered distribution are well known, leaves the Governor looking like a very poor public policy initiator, indeed.  It is an election year, you know. 

Ed Wassmer

Proprietor, Young’s Fine Wines & Spirits 

Manhasset, New York

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is another from  Will Ouweleen of Eagle Crest Winery:

We write to clarify points made in the February 4, 2010 Editorial “Some Wine With That?”

You seem to agree with supermarket wine advocates who claim New Yorkers suffer from too few wine outlets.

In truth, New Yorkers already consume more wine by volume than any other state, save one.

New Yorkers love wine and the New York wine industry is growing.

However, supermarkets offer little real value to most New York wineries. We are too small and they are too big to dance gracefully together.

New York wineries grow when consumers ask their local wine merchant to carry New York made wines. We don’t need more outlets. We need greater awareness.

Regular reviews of New York wine in The Times would matter far more than would the incremental growth promised by supermarket lobbyists.

We’ll toast to that!

The Winemakers of Eagle Crest Vineyards

Hemlock Lake, New York

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea of raising needed revenue by issuing new licenses and expanding the wine trade is sensible, but it should not be accomplished on the back of small businesses.

Many of the provisions of Gov. David A. Paterson’s bill will be detrimental to small operators. When you call opposition to the bill an “utterly cynical defense of the little guy,” I must take umbrage as the proprietor of a family-run wine distributorship. Most of my competitors are also family-run operations, as are most of the wine shops I sell to.

The editorial speaks of my paid lobbyists (I wish) and my monopoly hold on the wine trade (tell that to all my competitors scrambling for a spot on the list at a hot restaurant); this does not connect with the reality of the wine trade in New York today.

Victor Owen Schwartz
New York, Feb. 4, 2010

The writer is president of VOS Selections, a wine importer and distributor.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like a glass of sauvignon blanc with my dinner as much as the next guy. But in supporting a proposed New York State law to allow the sale of wine in grocery stores, you don’t acknowledge the unintended health consequences of adding about 20,000 retail alcohol outlets to the state’s alcohol distribution system.

Public health research shows that higher densities of retail alcohol outlets are associated with more youth drinking, more problem drinking and more alcohol-related health conditions. In New York City more than 25,000 people are hospitalized and 1,500 people die every year from alcohol-related injuries and illnesses.

Public policies on alcohol should protect the health of the city’s population, not harm it.

Nicholas Freudenberg
New York, Feb. 9, 2010

The writer is a professor of public health at the CUNY School of Public Health, Hunter College.

Letter: Balancing State Budget on Backs of Liquor Stores Will Ruin Them

Here is an excellent letter written by Ed Wassmer, proprietor of Young's Wine & Spirits, about the Governor's wrong-headed plan to add 19,000 new wine sales outlets in the state:

Friday, 05 February 2010 00:00

(Editors Note: This letter was sent to Governor Paterson and to the Manhasset Press for publication.)

I received from you today an undated letter touting your budget proposal to increase the number of stores selling wine by over 800 percent. I must admit that I had to smile at your gallows humor when you stated that your proposal will help me become more competitive. Governor, the short answer is that your proposal to pit my business, that of selling wine and spirits solely, against Costco, Wal-Mart, Stop & Shop, and hundreds of other big box chain stores that are permitted to sell tens of thousands of goods besides just wine and spirits, will not make me more competitive. What it will do is cause the demise of this industry, putting thousands out of work and, it will cause great harm to the citizens of New York. I object to your proposal on four different fronts - as an employer, as a parent, as a citizen and, as a consumer.

As an employer, I want to state unequivocally that your proposal will destroy my business, and with it over 22 jobs, all paying well over minimum wage, plus over $60,000 paid annually in licensing fees and for local school and general taxes. Your proposal focuses only on licensing fees from new licensees, not the revenue loss from closing thousands of stores and throwing thousands of employees into the ranks of the unemployed. Your own Law Review Commission advised you specifically against making this very mistake just last month, precisely because the economic consequences deserve detailed study and consideration, which has not occurred. Your proposal is going to cost the State money, because the loss of businesses and jobs will far outweigh the licensing revenue you hope to obtain. But, there are other problems with your proposal - bigger societal problems - than just decimating an industry that has served this State so well for over 76 years.

This must be 1984!

George Orwell must have been thinking of the Post-Journal when he coined the phrase "doublethink."  You know, 'war is peace,' and 'friend is foe.'  Apparently whatever truth the New York liquor stores say, the Post-Journal looks right into your face, lies like a rug and lo and behold: 'good' becomes 'evil,' 'yes' becomes 'no' and 'hot' becomes 'cold.'  Here is a case in point:

The New York State Law Revision Commission (please note, they have absolutely nothing to do with the New York State Liquor Authority like this article incorrectly reports) made the following statement on page 3 of their December 15, 2009 final report to the state:

“Wine in grocery stores has not been addressed herein because we concluded that before any action should be taken a complete and independent analysis of its economic consequences should be undertaken.”

Now, considering that this commission is made up of lawyers, people that make their living using words and ideas as tools, I think we can safely assume that they know how to say what's on their mind. Let me break this down to see what it means.  My understanding is in red: "We concluded" (after gathering all the pertinent facts from a broad number of industry sources, we came to the realization) "that before any action should be taken" (before the state does anything to revise the laws affecting wine sales in grocery stores) "a complete and independent analysis of its economic consequences should be undertaken." (the state should take a careful, complete and impartial look at who the financial winners and losers of any changes might be.)

Okay, pretty straight forward. The article author, Dennis Phillips, omitted that part of the report, but did quote the two sentences just after it:

''Regrettably, we lacked the time and experience to conduct such a study and the financial resources to engage experts on the subject,'' the report states. ''Our silence on the subject should not be viewed as an endorsement of any particular point of view.''

Okay, again, pretty straight forward.  Let me translate the above: Although we recommend that a thorough, complete and impartial economic impact study be done before any laws concerning this issue are changed by the state of New York, doing such a study was not our job.  It was not the commission we received from the state of New York, which is probably why we didn't have the money and manpower to conduct it.  We aren't saying we are for wine in grocery stores or against it. How could we have an opinion until after the study we recommend is actually completed!

I do think it is intellectually dishonest of Mr. Phillips to use the last part of the quote, the part that starts with "Regrettably . . ." but leaves the first part out.  No doubt because to include it would undermine his attempt at deceipt.

Mr. Phillips then quotes from a www.lastmainstreetstore.com coalition press release:

'What was the point of having a commission spend all that time and money (they did spend time and money) to produce a report (they did produce a lengthy, 342 page report) if you are just going to ignore it? (see the paragraph below)'' said Saunders in the news release from Jan. 25. ''Rather than follow the recommendations of the commission, the governor clearly followed the wishes of 'Big Box' store lobbyists who are looking to destroy our businesses. That's just wrong.''

Now, the Commission report was published on December 15, 2009.  Less than three weeks later Governor Patterson ignored the words "before any action should be taken a complete and independent analysis of its economic consequences should be undertaken," and put a recommendation in his 2010-2011 budget proposal that the laws of New York be revised to allow wine sales in grocery stores.


Now I have been called a lot of things, but never blind, deaf and dumb.  It sure looks to me like the Governor absolutely ignored the recommendation of this commission to do a thorough, independent study of the economic impact of revising these laws before making any changes.


Oh, and the part about big box stores trying to destroy the liquor stores?  A very well reported on study by Bradley J. Rickard, the Cornell University assistant business professor who authored The American Association of Wine Economists Working Paper No. 48, ‘Introducing Wine into Grocery Stores' reported that over 20 economic simulation models predicted that up to 32% of New York liquor stores' wine sales would be lost to the new grocery outlets.  I think its fair to conclude that when over 30% of your most profitable sales are lost your business is effectively and irrevocably ruined! 


Now, here is how this Orwellian "journalist" reports these facts:

This statement [''Regrettably, we lacked the time and experience to conduct such a study and the financial resources to engage experts on the subject,'' the report states. ''Our silence on the subject should not be viewed as an endorsement of any particular point of view."] is contrary to the statement made by Jeff Saunders, founder of the Last Store on Main Street coalition and president of the Retailers Alliance, who stated that the state commission spent time and money to produce a report the governor is supposedly ignoring.

How could anyone come to the conclusion that Mr. Saunders' statement is contrary to the statement of the Commission? Is this deductive logic?  Is this inductive logic?  No, it's Orwellian logic!  Right in front of our face Mr. Phillips tells an obvious and blatant lie. There is no way he can support his statement.  It is false and corrupt.


How do these "journalists' get away with this stuff?  It's simple, really.  It's because no one ever reads this clap-trap anyway.  They don't read it because critical thinking people have written these "journalists" off as charlatans and thieves precisely because of such shoddy reporting as this.


But remember this Mr. Phillips:  You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you..., well you know the  adage. To write such a trash piece as this you must be either dull or dishonest.  If I were your boss I would add one other term: unemployed.

Wine at the Grocery? No, Say Legislators

by Harold Egeln (edit@brooklyneagle.net), published online 02-03-2010



They Want To Protect Local Liquor Stores

By Harold Egeln
Brooklyn Daily Eagle

BAY RIDGE/SHEEPSHEAD BAY – Two state lawmakers at opposite ends of the political spectrum united to bar a controversial proposal by Gov. David Paterson to permit the sale of wine in grocery stores, bodegas, delis, mini-marts and gas stations statewide.

The plan was floated a year ago and shot down after widespread opposition. This time it is called “a dangerous scheme, reckless idea, job killer and fiscal gimmick” by Democratic Assemblyman Steve Cymbrowitz of Sheepshead Bay, while Republican state Sen. Marty Golden of Bay Ridge also denounced the proposal.

“I guess the governor didn’t pay attention last year when liquor stores across the state from Brooklyn to Buffalo signed petitions, rallied and opposed this measure that would hurt business and would force many mom-and-pop liquor stores to close,” said Golden, a former Bay Ridge Fifth Avenue business leader.

“In these trying economic times, the last thing we should be doing is asking the small liquor stores to compete with large chain stores, supermarkets and others,” said Golden. “If this proposal is approved, it will only cause great suffering for these small stores that keep people employed, that participate and support community events, and that are truly a part of neighborhoods.”

Read full article >>

Some Interesting Wegman Facts

I almost fell off my chair when I read the following comment by 'John,' (#3) to a story located here:

"Unfortunately, the grocery stores have flooded the market place with propaganda that has misinformed consumers. Cornell University did an independent study that forecasts that liquor stores sales will lower wine sales by 33%, which is a conservative estimate. I think anyone with common sense can determine that if you lose a third of your sales and your fixed cost of operating your store stay the same, you are going out of business quickly.
Selling potato chips and twinkies will not make up for the sales losses. Governor Patterson and the grocery stores are offering products that liquor stores have no space on the floor to sell, as they need to maintain their rack space for the wine, which now sells at a right of 33% less. Not to mention that nobody is going to buy the twinkies.
In the end, consumers will lose, especially those that prefer spirits over wine. Consumer selection will decline, NYS wine will be removed from the shelves, and the price of Jack Daniels and other liquors will skyrocket. And lets not forget that thousands will lose their jobs because the grocery stores will not hire one additional person.
This debate needs to get past consumer laziness. Why should grocery stores be provided any further unnecessary benefits? Below is a transcript of the damage grocery stores are having on the NYS economy:
http://www.wxxi.org/ntk/Transcripts/2009/0424.html
The investigative report aired on PBS Radio. The claim is that Wegmans received $204 million in taxpayer funded financing with their consideration being job creation. The report from David Cay Johnston determined that Wegmans created one full-time job as a result of the tax break, not living up to their obligations. This behavior is not limited to Wegmans, but everyone taking the free pork under Empire Zones.
More troubling is how the grocery store executives utilize lobbying for personal financial benefit. One of the leaders trying to reign in the “Death Tax” is the Wegmans family. Despite media accounts of banging drums, reports show only 18 families are petition Washington to not have to pay their fair share of taxes. Here’s the report:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/EstateTaxFinal.pdf
Noted special in the report, the Wegman family actually applies the lobbying cost to not have to pay personal taxes to their business. They are one of only two companies doing this. If you put two and two together, that seems to suggest we are paying an extra nickel for bread and milk to pay for the Wegman family’s efforts to not have to pay their fair share of taxes.
So, should we give them more? Absolutely not. The license are a one-time fee and don’t take into account maintenance cost in the long-run not does it take into account the Medicaid and unemployment costs of the people that lose their jobs. There are numerous costs associated with the proposal, it is not a net gain of $100M.
If grocery stores really want the wine, then lets get them to payback the state for also the tax break benefits they’ve unproperly received that have allowed them to price gouge mom-and-pop with lower prices because they elminated a major cost line on the income state…its called taxes.
Wegmans can get it started by extending their commitment to rescind all current tax breaks, cut a check for the $204 million in inappropriate taxpayer abuse and agree to pay their taxes both on their business and personal bank accounts like the rest of us New Yorkers."

Comment by John — February 1st, 2010 @ 10:48 am

 Amazing!  Sounds like rape and pillage time against all New Yorkers by the privilaged class to me.