Comments for "Liquor-store bill set for fight"

Joined: Aug 13
Points: 3602 Posted by D. B. (aka dbrown7733)
at 5:09 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Small store owners limit consumer's options for their own co The idea that this bill would kill small family-owned businesses is absurd. In other states where there is no 3.2 law (like Wisconsin, where I'm from) there are small liquer stores all over the place even though grocery stores can sell full-strength beer and wine. It's really too bad that kind of information doesn't seem to be looked at by news writers or lawmakers. Let's face it, the reason we can't run out and grab a six-pack before a Bronco's game, is because the small store owners don't want to have to be open on Sundays. Who says we're a consumer driven economy?
Kurt

Joined: Jul 3
Points: 330 Posted by Kurt (aka whiteice)
at 6:19 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

I agree with Kurt. I'm originally from NY and there were PLENTY of liquor stores that did incredible business. Everyone's gotta "wine" about something. hardee har har
rob
Joined: Jun 15
Points: 830 Posted by rob (aka italiaboy9)
at 6:24 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment
Vote up | Vote down (must be logged in to vote)
# I don't think there is anything in the law that would REQUIRE liquor stores to be open - its their choice...if they don't want to be open, great, I'll spend my money at ones that are.
Sinjin Eberle

Joined: May 21
Points: 1459 Posted by Sinjin Eberle (aka Sinjin4131)
at 6:27 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Backward state still with Blue laws It's time our Legislators wake up and abolish our Blue Laws, like existing liquor licensing, restriction on Sunday sales. Also our ridiculous restriction on when auto/motorcycle dealers may be open. Let's compete with some neighboring states!

That's why most people in southwest Colorado stock up on booze (and even some cars and trucks) whenever across the border in New Mexico.

The overriding reason why local alcohol dealers don't want the law changed is because they might have to lower their prices (a lot) to compete with the likes of King Soopers and Albertsons.

Liquor dealers have a tremendous lobby effort which gets in the way of reason when your legislator is thirsty.

And, if we really get lucky, maybe deregulation will entice Trader Joe's to come to Denver!
hank

Joined: Aug 29
Points: 636 Posted by jerry garcia (aka jgarcia)
at 6:52 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

PASS THIS LEGISLATION! WHY SHOULD THE REST OF COLORADO SUFFER THIS INCONVENIENCE SIMPLY TO HELP A FEW BUSINESS OWNERS? IF THE INDEPENDENT LIQUOR STORES CANNOT MAKE IT IN THE REAL WORKD, PERHAPS THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN BUSINESS. BESIDES THE "WE'LL GO OUT OF BUSINESS" ARGUMENT IS A BUNCH OF BS.

OUR LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO STOP PANDERING TO THE NAROW SPECIAL INTERESTS N THIS BILL AND GET RID OF THIS OUTDATED LAW.
vanwillie

Joined: Jun 14
Points: 525 Posted by vanwillie (aka vanwillie)
at 7:07 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

In the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Denver, where I live, we have plenty of liquor stores; why do we need to be able to buy beer/wine at convenience stores? So that the drunks don't have to stagger as far?

Opening on Sunday seems a reasonable change; the blue law doesn't really make sense. But I don't see that we, as a society, are suffering from a lack of alcohol availability. As someone who enjoys the occasional drink, I am not upset that I need to go to a liquor store.

I don't smoke (tobacco, marijuana, or anything else). But, if it were up to me, I'd restrict the sales of cigarettes and allow the sale of marijuana in the same manner as alcohol. One-stop shopping for cigs, booze, and pot.
Greg InDenver

Joined: May 25
Points: 267 Posted by Greg InDenver (aka GeoGreg)
at 7:24 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Being from Wisconsin also (where there is more brandy consumed per capita than the rest of the world combined) I saw two liquor stores go out of business in my small state-line town whant a supermarket was built and started to sell booze. It depends on your location. If your an independant in a strip mall with Safeway next door, you're probably going to have to move to a location where lack of competeition will make you convenient.
Scott Braukhoff


Joined: Dec 12
Points: 261 Posted by K Mat (aka Big Crazy Wayne)
at 7:36 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Beer, Wine in all stores, liquor in liquor stores In all the other states I have lived and visited with family (California, Washington State, Virginia, Florida, Arizona), I could buy full-strength beer and wine in almost any grocery store. These grocery stores usually would carry the popular wines and beers, and if I wanted something different like hard liquor, a special wine or beer, I would go to a full-fledged "liquor store". Just keep the hard liquor out of the grocery stores and let the Mom and Pops have that market and everyone should ok. It works elsewhere, so if Colorado can't do it, then there is something wrong with Colorado, not the concept.
ScreamOfReason

Joined: Jul 9
Points: 573 Posted by ScreamOfReason (aka ScreamOfReason)
at 7:58 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

I don't agree with selling at grocery stores personally but I do agree with selling on sundays.

Selling at grocery stores may not put people out of business but it will hurt business and I like my local liquor stores. Well those of them that don't charge 12 bucks for a 6er of Easy Street.

BTW a really good Small Liquor Store is on 17th and Race Near Downtown
Dude Man

Joined: May 14
Points: 5862 Posted by Dude Man (aka acsguitar)
at 7:58 AM on Friday Feb 8 Report Abuse | Report Good Comment

Enough Government Meddling - Pass This I completely agree that they should pass this legislation. Where is the sense in allowing one type of store to sell one type of product, but tell another store that they can only sell less premium products or none at all � even if they are willing to go through all the same licensing requirements as the other store? And then compound this senselessness by saying that they can sell full blast, everything they want, six days a week but can�t sell on Sunday. This is archaic and amounts to little more than government meddling. Plenty of states allow grocers to sell liquor and these states seem to have plenty of liquor stores too. Additionally, it seems many Colorado liquor stores like to crank the prices a bit. Bringing powerful retailers such as King Soopers, Safeway, and Albertsons into this market will encourage stores to price fairly. I�ve seen prices on a six-pack fluctuate by as much as $2.50 from store to store.
Sean S

Liquor-store bill set for fight

By Jessica Fender
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 02/08/2008 09:11:26 AM MST

Colorado shoppers could have more options to buy full-strength beer and wine following the introduction Thursday of a bill that would overhaul the state's liquor industry by extending retailers' ability to sell alcohol.

Impassioned debate over the proposal in recent weeks has led to a series of deals between brewers and vintners as well as convenience stores, which also would be able to sell liquor if the proposal passes. An original version extended sales only to large grocery stores.

None of the new provisions makes the bill palatable to liquor stores, which argue the measure will put them out of business.

House sponsor Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said that while the bill is finding more friends at the Capitol, passage remains a longshot. He added that the recent tweaks make it more fair and defensible.

"I wouldn't bet the farm" on it passing, Pommer said. "But I'd bet a bottle of cheap scotch."

The new bill, likely to be heard next week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, would:

• Allow liquor-store owners to operate up to three shops, up from the current one-store limit.

• Allow liquor stores to set aside 5 percent of their floor space for selling nonperishable food items.

• Introduce a new class of liquor license that would allow retailers to sell wine and full-strength beer.

• Limit beer and wine displays in supermarkets and convenience stores to 5 percent of floor space.

• Require 20 percent of those displays to contain craft beers and another 20 percent to contain boutique wines.

Senate sponsor Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said that Colorado's craft breweries — including New Belgium Brewery and smaller operations — would be guaranteed space in supermarkets and convenience stores.

Current laws dating back to Prohibition say only independently owned liquor stores can sell wine, spirits and beer that have higher than 3.2 percent alcohol by weight.

Those are the rules under which many of the mom-and-pop liquor shops started their businesses, signing long-term leases and taking out hefty bank loans, said liquor-store lobbyist Scott Chase.

"This bill would have a devastating impact on those family-owned businesses," said Chase, who estimated that 70 percent of liquor-store revenues comes from wine and full-strength beer. "That's the last thing the Colorado economy needs right now."

Shaffer said he expects a fight on Senate Bill 149. He's already heard that some lobbyists are considering blasting supporters with robo-calls bashing the bill.

"The real challenge I see is to be able to have just an intellectual conversation on the policy as opposed to an emotional conversation driven by lobbyists down at the Capitol," Shaffer said.

Jessica Fender: 303-954-1244 or jfender@denverpost.com

More Comments

Comments

Posted by JB on February 8, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good work Sen. Shaffer!

I'm glad you modified the bill to make it more fair for everyone! It's about time that we make our current laws more consumer friendly and not just protect a small segment of the population.

If the legislature fails to pass this, perhaps I will start a petition and get this as a ballot issue in November!

Posted by Darwin on February 8, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will sign it JB

Posted by JB on February 8, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then it's a plan! If they don't pass it... we'll do a ballot issue! Seriously... anyone have a link to the info on how to start a ballot issue in Colorado?

Comments

Posted by jgd on February 7, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Allen,

When was the last time our legislators where concerned about the private business owner? If you are not a big contributor to their campaigns then you are meaningless. Ask the small bar and restaurant owners, or should I say previous owners. Good Luck!

Posted by glowrock on February 7, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If a small liquor store chooses to stay closed on Sunday, more power to them. I personally don't care if they close on Sunday or not. At the same time, I'm sick and freaking tired of the "woe is me!" attitude of the liquor store owners. Big freaking deal, liquor will be able to be sold on Sundays. Whoa, it's going to force store owners to forgo their one day off. Waaahhhhh!!!!

Oh brother. If a fast-food place like Chick-fil-a can stay closed on Sunday, so can private liquor stores...

Posted by peterpi on February 7, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you glowrock! No one would force liquor stores to open on Sundays. They could stay closed. But right now, they are forced to close on Sunday whether they want to or not.
Ever notice business owners fight for "freedom", then when someone comes along and loosens the rules, they fight like crazy to keep them the way they are?
Some liquor stores are crying in their beer that they may have to compete on Sundays. My gosh! The horrors! Imagine business owners having to compete!
Add Hobby Lobby to Chick-Fil-A as a store that (ahem) voluntarily closes on Sundays, and still makes money.

Posted by titancain on February 8, 2008 at 12:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The local liquor store is a ripoff. It charges 20 percent more than others. Screw them.

Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on February 8, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wyatt complains about the special interest groups influencing the legislators. The liquor store owners are a special interest group trying to influence the legislators. Hmmm. Conflict here.

Included in the bill is allowing stores to sell regular beer. 2.3 beer is a joke and a rip-off. It is a throw-back to the old days of blue laws. Get rid of 3.2 beer everywhere.

Posted by glowrock on February 8, 2008 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I forgot about Hobby Lobby... Add them to the stores that are closed on Sunday and still make money. :)

Blue laws are terrible, period. They need to disappear.

Bills to relax liquor laws would hurt family businesses

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Allan Wyatt

Thursday, February 7, 2008

$2.8 millon divided by 1600 equals $1750. $1750 divided by 52 equals $33.65.

These numbers represent the tax revenue that might be generated by having liquor stores open on Sunday. This is a false premise. Sales figures and tax revenue will show a minor uptick for the first year or so on the novelty of being able to buy on Sundays, but will then flatten out to spread the same amount of sales over seven days instead of six.

State Sen. Brandon Shaffer(D) Longmont and Rep. Jack Pommer(D) Boulder have put a proposal to let major chain stores like Safeway and King Soopers sell alcohol.

State Sen. Jennifer Viega(D) Denver has put forth a proposal to let (force) independent liquor stores to be open on Sundays.

Both proposals have been wrapped in the guise of “convenience” for the customers. This they are not. They are nothing more than a cynical way of collecting tax revenue at the expense of the private liquor store owners.

By giving us these proposals they are putting store owners on the horns of a dilemma. Let the big guys have their way and put us out of business, or let the legislature have its’ way and take away their one guaranteed day a week off.

These three are playing both ends against the middle on this one. They get what they want, supposedly more tax revenue by holding store owners hostage. Either store owners stay open on Sundays, or they unleash the big dogs on them.

Being Democrats, they are supposed to be the champions of the little guy against the corporate behemoths. Unless the siren song of taxes gets in the way, then hang to your hats ‘cause it appears that these three will throw you under the bus to get to the money.

All one has to do is look at the mega-corps that have put the monies up for these proposals, Safeway, Kroger, Diageo. Huge money. No matter how the pie is sliced, they get what they want and the left side of the aisle gets what it wants, store owners be damned.

For the sake of convenience, I would like to be able to get in touch with, or go see my representatives or senators at MY convenience. Say, Saturday or Sunday. Maybe until midnight during the week. After all, these are the hours that liquor stores are open. So why shouldn’t I be given the same “convenience"? If you can’t plan ahead far enough to buy beer or liquor for Sunday, why should I be inconvenienced to be a convenience to you?

Please give the unpaid tax-collectors of Colorado a break by letting them have one day off a week without the threat of mega-corps putting them out of business, or forcing them to be open against their will. Please call or e-mail your Reps and Sens to vote against both of these proposals.

Allan Wyatt is a resident of Longmont

Bill would expand beer, wine sale sites

Liquor stores fear competition from grocery giants

By Roger Fillion, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, February 8, 2008

Grocery stores, convenience stores and big retailers could sell full-strength beer and wine under a bill introduced Thursday in the state legislature.

Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, the sponsor of SB 149, said he made several changes to an initial draft that would have allowed only large grocers such as Safeway and King Soopers to sell regular beer and wine.

The changes also are aimed at overcoming objections from liquor store owners who fear they would be forced out of business.

Liquor store owners, however, signaled their continued opposition. They've thrown their support behind a separate bill that would permit liquor stores to open on Sunday.

SB 149, co-sponsored by Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, would:

* Permit grocers and convenience stores to sell regular beer and wine six days a week. Big retailers that operate grocery departments, such as Wal-Mart and Target, could do the same.

* Allow liquor stores to sell nonperishable foods such as chips, pretzels and dips.

* Allow liquor store owners to own up to three liquor stores, instead of one.

State law has barred grocers from selling regular beer and wine since Prohibition ended in 1933. Currently, they can sell only beer containing 3.2 percent alcohol. Full-strength beer contains 6 percent alcohol.

"This has been one of the most heavily lobbied bills down at the Capitol," Shaffer said.

He said he has met with individual liquor store owners and others such as craft brewers, while liquor store lobbyists have said no to a deal.

"There has been no interest on their part to negotiate with me," Shaffer said.

Draft language of the legislation had limited wine and beer sales to grocers that have a pharmacy and get at least 51 percent of their revenue from food sales.

Opponents charged that such restrictions would have barred big retailers, rural grocers and convenience stores from the sales.

The draft legislation also didn't contain provisions to permit liquor stores to sell food and liquor store owners to own more than one store.

But Scott Chase, spokesman for two dozen large liquor stores, said: "This bill has gone from bad to dangerous."

Citing underage-drinking worries, he added: "Colorado does not want or need 2,000 gas stations and grocery stores selling alcohol."

fillionr@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2467

New provisions in SB 149

* Grocers and retailers could devote up to 5 percent of their floor space to regular beer and wine.

* To spur sales of Colorado craft beer and wine, a certain percentage of the space set aside for beer and wine would have to be devoted to craft beers and "boutique" wines.

* Liquor stores could devote up to 5 percent of their floor space to nonperishable food.

Talbott: Energy, money saved

What's not to like?

By Clint Talbott (Contact)
Thursday, February 7, 2008

The cheapest energy is that which is never used. Conservation saves money, resources and the environment. We shouldn't need a law to ratify that bit of common sense. But apparently, we do. It's good to see that legislators seem up to the job.

On Tuesday, a state House committee approved a bill mandating sound energy-efficiency programs. House Bill 1107, sponsored by Boulder Democrat Claire Levy, would require smaller utility companies to launch energy-efficiency initiatives.

A similar bill that covered investor-owned utilities like Xcel Energy became law last year. In response, Xcel has boosted its rebate, technical-assistance and other efficiency programs. These programs will save customers $1.3 billion and eliminate the need for one large power plant, Xcel says.

Levy's bill, which is also sponsored by Boulder Democrat Jack Pommer, applies to rural-electric associations and municipal utilities, which generate about 40 percent of the state's electricity. The measure would direct the smaller utilities to spend at least 2 percent of their revenue on energy-efficiency programs for customers beginning in 2010.

The utilities would offer programs such as low-cost energy audits, rebates on high-efficiency appliances and cut-rate compact-fluorescent light bulbs. The affected utilities would spend about $32 million annually, according to the Colorado Public Interest Research Group.

But the savings would be impressive. By making that modest investment, the utilities would save about 420 megawatts of peak electric power demand, and about 1.5 billion killowatt-hours per year by 2020. The latter figure is about what it takes to power 170,000 households, CoPIRG says.

Levy's bill would yield consumers and businesses $600 million in economic benefits over the next dozen years, according to the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, a nonprofit group. It would also, obviously, improve carbon dioxide emissions. By 2020, the bill would prevent the emission of 1.4 million metric tons of CO2 annually.

While acknowledging the efficacy of "demand-side management" programs, some observers wonder if the smaller utilities will be able to reap benefits as large as those projected. That's a fair question. But even if the economic benefits are smaller than anticipated, it's worth noting that the environmental benefits are more than worthy.

The world's leading climate scientists say that averting dangerous levels of warming, global CO2 emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years. They say global greenhouse-gas emissions must be at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Modest measures like Levy's bill won't move us substantially closer to such daunting goals. But even small steps in the right direction are worth taking. And the fact that Levy's bill would save energy, emissions and money should make it a slam dunk.

Clint Talbott, for the editorial board

Water bills abound at Capitol

By K.C. Mason
Journal-Advocate Capitol correspondent

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

DENVER — Water bills, including several focused specifically on usage of the South Platte River, are beginning to get the attention of Colorado lawmakers, as they end the first month of their fourth-month legislative session.

The House on Monday debated two bills sponsored by Rep. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, in her attempt to get some relief to mostly hay and vegetable growers in Weld, Adams and Morgan counties whose wells have been shut down for lack of augmentation plans.

One bill passed; the other didn’t. Opponents had the same arguments on both — they upset Colorado’s 130-year-old doctrine of prior appropriation. The forbidden practice of “water speculation” even was mentioned a couple of times.

Hodge’s House Bill 1030, which forgives irrigators of depletions made before 1974 when the augmentation rules were put into place, won preliminary approval on a stand-up vote with more than the 33 votes required for final passage.

Her HB 1044, however, was declared lost in another stand-up vote, called a division. It would have allowed ditch companies and others to loan excess augmentation credits to other users on the same stream and in the same year without going to water court.

“The second one was harder to explain so it could not be as easily understood,” Hodge said. “The first was an issue of fairness. There was no requirement for augmentation prior to 1974, and it only takes away about 700 acre feet of water per year.”

Hodge said both measures grew out of last summer’s South Platte River task force, which Gov. Bill Ritter appointed after about 400 wells were curtailed.

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, supported both bills, but Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, was among those who split their votes on the two bills.

“The first one was a small minnow in the pond and was consistent with what we have done when we exempted the gravel pits,” Sonnenberg said.

“But with the other bill, I worry about the transparency of what people are doing with their water,” he explained. “If we can trade those (excess augmentation credits), the people don’t know if they have been damaged until the damage is already done.

Boulder Democratic Reps. Alice Madden and Jack Pommer, and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, led the charge against both measures. Sterling, Boulder and Highlands Ranch were among the objectors in allowing the wells to continue pumping.

Every ounce of water in the South Platte ought to be accounted for,” McNulty said. “Depletions that are caused by pumping ought to be augmented so that senior rights are not hurt.”

Pommer and Madden chastised the well owners for now following the law.

“Here we are doing something to protect that small group of people, who despite warnings starting in 1960s, have absolutely refused to follow the law and do the right thing,” Pommer said of HB 1030.

Said Madden: “This is helping people who for the last several years decided not to negotiate and decided not to change and not to work within the system. We shouldn’t be rewarding people who frankly haven’t been very responsible.”

Pommer also argued Hodge’s second bill “opens the door to speculation.”

“It’s a way to get water you don’t need, but you hang onto it,” Pommer said. “This bill does not provide people with adequate notice to go in and make a claim that these (credits) should not be leant out.”

Similar arguments are expected on pending Senate bills from District 1 Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, and Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont.

Brophy’s SB 53, scheduled for its first committee hearing on Thursday, would change the definition of “designated ground water,” which does not require augmentation, to include water that takes more than 100 years for depletions to affect the nearest surface water.

Shaffer’s SB 136, which has yet to be scheduled for a hearing, would give the state engineer’s office the ability to allow well users to pump out of priority during the non-irrigation season without required augmentation, if they could prove the water would be available to downstream users when needed.

Shaffer said he is looking at the bigger picture of how water courts operate.

“Water is a resource in our state than needs to be managed, and by definition that means we need to have flexibility in the way we apportion our resource resources,” Shaffer said. “The statutory scheme that we have right now does not provide for that flexibility. I think we have an unwieldy system that needs to be reformed. The water court system is not working in our state.”

Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, also has introduced a bill that would allow the use of cisterns or other catchment systems to collect and store rainwater from residential homes of up to 3,000 square feet of roof space. The captured water then could be used for household purposes, fire protection, watering livestock and irrigating up to one acre of lawns and gardens.

“This is my first water bill, so wish me luck,” Romer said. “Many in the rural community already are doing it, but need to do it legally. This is a good bill that will be friendly to the environment, and in the long term create appropriate water storage without building a lot of new projects.”

Sporting groups, recreationists and environmentalists have banded together to support a package of three bills that they say will help protect Colorado rivers by keeping more water in the streams.

House Bill 1280, sponsored by Rep. Randy Fischer, D-Fort Collins, and Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, would allow long-term loans of water rights to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for in-stream flow without risking abandonment of the right.

Other bills in the package that have not yet been introduced, would create a tax incentive for water-right owners who choose to leave their water in rivers and streams permanently; and create a $1 million fund within the CWCB to assist in acquiring more in-stream flow water rights.