And we may have wine in grocery stores yet.
A new proposal to sell wine in grocery stores has surfaced after a previous proposal left liquor store owners cold.
Liquor store owners feel the proposal poses a threat to the last “mom and pop” stores in the state. But data shows that states that permit the sale of wine in grocery stores actually have more liquor stores than New York. In fact, 35 other states already permit the sale of wine in grocery stores. New York is the only major wine producing state that doesn't.
Prohibition era alcohol control laws prevent grocery stores from selling anything other than beer, hard cider and wine coolers.
The state could gain as much as $100 million in licensing fees from grocery stores eager to jump on the wine band wagon. It's rare to see businesses willing invest a couple thousand to expand business. Why not embrace it?
Of course, I firmly believe that there should be some concessions made to liquor store owners, such as allowing them to sell cheese and snack foods.
Allowing liquor stores to carry food items might help level the playing field. Although I highly doubt that any of the large grocery chains are going to carry the variety that a specialty store would have available.
Frankly, there isn't any data to support the accusations that have been laid at this proposal.
I've heard people say that it will increase under age drinking, which is berserk. I swear, a 100-year-old man couldn't buy a six back of Blue Ribbon at Wegmans without two forms of I.D. and his mother's birth certificate.
If anything, grocery stores have better scanning systems and more stringent rules than liquor stores or even bars.
It boils down to mentality. People get very bent out of shape at the very prospect of change. In the end, a store is a store. And don't be fooled by the corporate logo, chain stores are struggling just as much as the “mom and pop” stores.
There comes a point when you need to step back and look at the big picture and with our state's economy in as rough shape as it is, this makes a heck of a lot more sense than taxing sugary soft drinks or movie tickets.
After all, money doesn't grow on trees. If someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. Until then, I'm on the wine wagon.
Estabrook's columns appear Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
Liquor store owners feel the proposal poses a threat to the last “mom and pop” stores in the state. But data shows that states that permit the sale of wine in grocery stores actually have more liquor stores than New York. In fact, 35 other states already permit the sale of wine in grocery stores. New York is the only major wine producing state that doesn't.
Prohibition era alcohol control laws prevent grocery stores from selling anything other than beer, hard cider and wine coolers.
The state could gain as much as $100 million in licensing fees from grocery stores eager to jump on the wine band wagon. It's rare to see businesses willing invest a couple thousand to expand business. Why not embrace it?
Of course, I firmly believe that there should be some concessions made to liquor store owners, such as allowing them to sell cheese and snack foods.
Allowing liquor stores to carry food items might help level the playing field. Although I highly doubt that any of the large grocery chains are going to carry the variety that a specialty store would have available.
Frankly, there isn't any data to support the accusations that have been laid at this proposal.
I've heard people say that it will increase under age drinking, which is berserk. I swear, a 100-year-old man couldn't buy a six back of Blue Ribbon at Wegmans without two forms of I.D. and his mother's birth certificate.
If anything, grocery stores have better scanning systems and more stringent rules than liquor stores or even bars.
It boils down to mentality. People get very bent out of shape at the very prospect of change. In the end, a store is a store. And don't be fooled by the corporate logo, chain stores are struggling just as much as the “mom and pop” stores.
There comes a point when you need to step back and look at the big picture and with our state's economy in as rough shape as it is, this makes a heck of a lot more sense than taxing sugary soft drinks or movie tickets.
After all, money doesn't grow on trees. If someone has a better idea, I'm all ears. Until then, I'm on the wine wagon.
Estabrook's columns appear Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 15 comment(s)
wheres-the-remote wrote on May 29, 2009 4:16 PM:
091951 wrote on May 29, 2009 8:16 AM:
wiltapa wrote on May 27, 2009 9:28 PM:
Why don't you write about fixing the real problem, not re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? "
wiltapa wrote on May 27, 2009 9:24 PM:
You're right - it's time for us to step back and look at the big picture. The state spends more, way more, than it takes in.
So, rather than tax everything and license anything, why don't we fix the big problem we see when we step back and look at your big picture - stop government over spending. "
united we wish wrote on May 27, 2009 4:43 PM:
daydreamer wrote on May 27, 2009 12:19 PM:
CayCntyLifer wrote on May 26, 2009 9:57 PM:
daydreamer wrote on May 26, 2009 1:29 PM:
plasmatronix wrote on May 26, 2009 12:18 PM:
Hey, I'm just being honest. Bottom line is that I spend a lot of money on groceries every week. I would spend more on wine if it were available in grocery stores. Maybe there are others like me...I don't know the research.
Also, I don't think a couple of glasses of wine each week warrants "curbing." According to Dr. Newman (breastfeeding specialist; http://www.drjacknewman.com/): "A breastfeeding mother does not need to avoid spicy foods, garlic, cabbage or alcohol" and "reasonable alcohol intake should not be discouraged at all." "
dbsym wrote on May 26, 2009 12:15 PM:
Also, local areas would lose too. A quote from Legislature Chairman Jonathan F. Rouis “It is obvious that this change would decrease the volume of sales made in our locally owned businesses and would increase sales for larger, corporate-owned grocery, convenience and drug stores. This loss of sales and revenue would detrimentally impact our locally owned businesses and the county as a whole, because the corporate-owned stores send their profits to other counties and states where the corporate headquarters are located.”
Danny Wegman has a lot of pull with Joe Morrelle, after all he is from the Rochester area. Wonder how much he offered for support to his next election or donations to his causes which are probably hidden. Dan Wegman also controls much of the Seneca Wine area including the Wine Institute and Cornell. Wonder what he offered the wineries that supported him in the Seneca wine regions if they would come out to support wine in grocery stores. Looks like he is getting total control of western NY State in many ways. You can bet he ruined many other small businesses out there and put them out of business.
I would love to see a bill for beer being taken out of grocery stores. Let that be contolled by the state too for the liquor stores. After all gocery stores, promote healthy foods. What is so healthy about beer?
Prices would not be any lower than the Liquor Stores and there would be less to choose from. Did you know that 59% of the cost of a bottle of wine is taxes? And now the federal gov't wants to add more on top of that to help pay for the National Health insurance.
Wake up people and learn the true facts because all this is about greed for more profits. And it would not necessarily remain in your community. Wholefoods has stores in europe! That money could go out of the country. "
GiveMeLiberty wrote on May 26, 2009 8:30 AM:
If your business model depends on the state telling other businesses that they can't sell the same things that you do, then you deserve to fail.
Sincerely, GML
PS. I don't believe for a second that you would fail if Wegmans started selling wine. "
anonymous wrote on May 26, 2009 8:23 AM:
Good to see parenthood has helped you curb your drinking. You know, you can buy more than one bottle when you stop every other month. Putting this in grocery stores is just bad news and will make it more readily accessible to children. "
plasmatronix wrote on May 25, 2009 10:33 PM:
dbsym wrote on May 25, 2009 4:28 PM:
The data you talk about is propaganda from the grocery stores. It is not the truth as they do not say that those 35 states had it in grocery stores immediately after prohibition or they were state stores. They are putting in only what they want to show, not the whole story. This Sate would not allow this to happen. Wine is a controlled substance and that is big reason not to put in grocery stores.
As a reporter for this newspaper you should investigate into this, not just take statements from the big boxes what they believe in. "
anonymous wrote on May 25, 2009 10:05 AM:
What about the cost of losing all the mom and pop liquor atores. Besides the obvious costs of the sales tax they pay, which would probably be rec ouped by letting the Big Brother store sell their products, there is also the need to support all those people who will lose their jobs because the government decided to fix a system that ain't broke. "