 |
| Flyer being handed out, as tweeted by Justin Fidler |
Of course, County Executive Ike Leggett has already stated his intention to raise taxes in the next budget, as the County Council's fiscal mismanagement over the last 14 years has created a structural deficit with no end in sight. And, no, raising taxes every year to cover ever-increasing spending is not a responsible record for a public official.
Councilmember Hans Riemer, who has posed as a critic of the liquor monopoly to promote himself through the local media, has ironically ended up defending the current regime along with seven of his colleagues. Roger Berliner, who represents District 1 on the Council, has declined to oppose new attempts to end the monopoly. Delegate Bill Frick - who like Berliner represents Bethesda, where bars and restaurants have been hurt by the current monopoly - has joined Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot in efforts in Annapolis to allow private competition within the county.
The flyer states that the current monopoly "doesn't cost taxpayers a single dime." Well, not only did these flyers cost the taxpayers, but the current County-controlled system requires both consumers and private businesses to pay more for liquor than they would in the District. So that statement is false.
Riemer's compromise, to allow competition for "special order" products, not only conveniently allows the DLC to define which products are "special orders," but would also allow the DLC to levy an arbitrary fee the consumer would end up paying - a tax, in other words. Tax? No wonder Riemer and the Council are for it!
But the flyers are essentially a gaffe for the County liquor regime, as they are being handed out mere days after yet another DLC holiday delivery disaster. As the Seventh State blog reported December 31, a DLC blunder resulted in missed deliveries to restaurants and bars between December 23-29. Don't worry, DLC Director George Griffin assured them, orders would be back on schedule by New Year's Eve. Oh, and there was a little matter of an order backlog... No big deal if you own a restaurant, bar or beer-and-wine store, right? - it's only one of your biggest times of the year during the holidays, after all.
This comes after the DLC was criticized last year for being unable to fill orders for items as basic as Maker's Mark during previous holiday seasons. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
The bottom line is that the vast majority of County residents want government out of the liquor business, the benefits of high-quality retailers in competition with each other, and the simple ability to pick up Bud Light or a $9 wine bottle at the grocery store. Despite odd claims that the state is responsible for the current inability to do the latter, the reality is that requires the same sort of state-level law change in Annapolis that Riemer is seeking for his current plan. The only difference is that our elected officials aren't asking for it. Hmm...why is that?
This is not the first time we as taxpayers have been forced to pay for PR materials promoting a position the majority of residents oppose (Ambulance Fee, Bus Rapid Transit, anybody?). It should be the last.
31 comments:
I'm not sure where the Country Club gets their deliveries from, but thankfully we were able to order our regular drinks all holiday season.
Country Clubs get their spirits from the same place everyone else gets theirs. These flyers sure sound like the Old Soviet Union. You buy from us or else. Montgomery County residents prefer that the govt stay out of the liquor business and yet these Marxist Democrats who want to do everything for you, cradle to grave entitlements, tax and spend our money not theirs and create burdens to free market capitalism and yet they get re-elected term after term. How bout voting them all out and getting some sensible politicians in Rockville whether they be Dems, Independants or Republicans? The status quo sure isn't working that well.
what is killing the places is the ratio of food to alcohol-sure the dlc has to go but the first thing that needs to change is the ratio.
I agree. End all alcohol taxes. Legalize drugs. Get the government out of commerce.
A friend of mine just confirmed that her Sidecar at Mon Ami Gabi tasted slightly different on 12/28. Perhaps they substituted something for their regular spirits. She said it still tasted lovely.
Finally, Dyer reports on what may be the hottest topic in local elections this year -- ending the DLC monopoly. The "other website" has had numerous posts on it, from varying angles.
It is sad, but not surprising, that DLC whipped up a few flyers to try and give all the great reasons to support the monopoly. I got one too when I was there last week. Of course, those flyers never mention that they have a monopoly, or why a monopoly is good.
The Council knows if this goes to referendum, the people are likely to vote to end the monopoly, which is why they are trying to block it. The Council is in the hands of the union, that is worried about losing 300 members who currently work at DLC.
The funny thing is the proposal from Frick and Franchot won't shut down DLC stores. It will merely allow private companies to compete.
So if DLC is so great, they shouldn't be worried about competition, right? Surely no one can offer better services and prices than the great DLC, right?
The bottom line is that the vast majority of County residents DO NOT want more LIQUOR STORES every corner, more drunken people on the streets, more alcohol related deaths, more domestic violence, more binge drinking, more underage drinking, more spouse abuses, more DUI, and the list goes on.
Peter Franchot and Bill Frick “WORK” for Diageo USA and Anheuser Busch. As matter of fact, Bill’s wife works for the Diageo USA.
Privatizing DLC would only benefits Peter Franchot, Bill Frick and his wife, Diageo USA, Anheuser Busch, and other big companies. It will not benefits small businesses.
You are not being truthful when you said “....County-controlled system requires both consumers and private businesses to pay more for liquor than they would in the District.”
Huh?
It pains me to say it, but this is probably the first time I have ever agreed with Dyer.
The county is drunk on tax revenues and can't afford to lose their liquor. Right now they are in the denial phase of their tax-alcoholism. Maybe one day they will wake up and realize. As a drinking restaurant go-er I feel $100 in added property tax will wash out in personal savings at the very least.
7:25: WTF are you trying to say?
Mr. Robert Dyer, you should have done little research before posting this article.
You are inaccurate about Maker's Mark issues. Please read these articles.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/17/makers-mark-restore-proof/1926081/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/whiskey-shortage_n_3327556.html
Montgomery County residents DO NOT want Montgomery County Government to stay out of the liquor business.
Only greedy politicians like Peter Franchot and Bill Frick and greedy alcohol distributors like Diageo USA and Anheuser Busch, Jim Beam, and many more big alcohol distributors want Montgomery County Government to stay out of the liquor business.
The more Liquor, beer & wine stores in the Montgomery County, more incomes for these people: Peter Franchot, Bill Frick, Diageo USA, Anheuser Busch, Jim Beam, and many more.
8:23, 7:56 & 7:25 - These comments brought to you by The DLC hooligans and MoCo County government.
7:56 - you missed the mark, so to say. The shortage refers to delivery snafus that happened last year, totally separate from the Makers Mark issue you linked to that occurred in 2013. It was a specific shortage the DLC had last holiday season as shared by management at Clyde's Tower Lodge - http://eastmoco.blogspot.com/2015/07/despite-special-order-proposal.html
y'all are so quick to jump all over Dyer!
7:25: So, you're saying bar patrons and Bradley Food & Beverage are paying less for alcohol in MoCo than in the District? That's not what I'm hearing from people in the business.
Speaking of, how come we never see a review of Bradley Food & Beverage's daily special sandwiches on your youtube channel? Some of them look pretty good.
Since I have no knowledge of what DC vs. MD vs. VA wholesale prices are to restaurants and bars and what the markups are for drinks, all the commentary below only pertains to actual in-store retail.
I HAVE actually web-shopped the DLC price list vs. Calvert-Woodley (a good example since it's on the Red Line and easy to get to for me).
Prices on the VAST majority of products are within $1-$3. Some things are cheaper at DLC, some at Calvert. There's no consistency as to the items, and of course I am discounting anything that may be on sale.
I would suspect that the same is probably the case if you shopped the DLC price list vs. other DC liquor stores that post prices online vs. the VA ABC prices vs. Total Wine prices.
The comments from 7:25 and 8:23 AM in re: Anheuser Busch (part of the larger AmBev conglomerate) IS ACTUALLY RELEVANT as they have been buying up local distributors in the US, and there is concern from the craft beer community that there already some background efforts to make it much harder for them to sell through them. And I'd note that AmBev has already bought interests in a number of craft brewers already, so the fear is that they will favor the craft brands they have bought into over others.
So....IMHO, unless you HAVE actually gone out and prices shopped (even over the internet for 15 minutes), I don't think it's appropriate to harangue about how MoCo booze prices are exorbitantly expensive...when in truth, as with everything else, the answer is "it depends."
Since I have no knowledge of what DC vs. MD vs. VA wholesale prices are to restaurants and bars and what the markups are for drinks, I can't comment to that, so any commentary I have is to actual retail prices, which again at the
And as an addendum to the above....IMHO the easiest route out of this is would just be for Annapolis to unify the regulatory scheme at the state level and leave it at that. Question of course is why, after 80+ years, that still hasn't happened?
Oh yeah....and I'm all in favor of the County getting out of the biz too.
I moved to another state out west and miss the DLC's prices on liquor.
wow, the union has really rallied the troops to disseminate BS to push its agenda.
"The bottom line is that the vast majority of County residents want government out of the liquor business, the benefits of high-quality retailers in competition with each other, and the simple ability to pick up Bud Light or a $9 wine bottle at the grocery store. Despite odd claims that the state is responsible for the current inability to do the latter, the reality is that requires the same sort of state-level law change in Annapolis that Riemer is seeking for his current plan. The only difference is that our elected officials aren't asking for it. Hmm...why is that?"
You're conflating issues. And then asking a question that has an obvious answer - the county doesn't want to push hundred+ beer & wine shops out of business. They feel those small businesses are more important than the interests of Safeway and Giant.
how about the interests of county residents who would simply like to pick up a bottle of Chianti in the same shopping trip when they get their liver and fava beans? Why have to make a separate trip? I know this is not a MoCo thing, but it's the next stupid blue law that needs to be changed.
re: Anon @ 11:06 -- you'll have to be more specific about what you think is the BS that the union is disseminating.
re Anon @ 11:13 -- not totally disagreeing with you, but there is certainly room for the Giants and Safeways of the world, and also the mom & pop places -- especially if the latter have certain specialties and focus customer service like the Calvert Woodleys of the world.
"Why have to make a separate trip?"
I'm not saying I agree with the county's reasoning, but their reasoning is pretty clear - despite it going over Dyer's head.
9:26 - appreciate your comments...
My thoughts - First it is extremely important to delineate between liquor, versus beer & wine. In my experience, if you're shopping for LIQUOR, then MoCo is your go to source. The liquor prices at MoCo stores are definitely cheaper than DC or VA. Unless, of course, you want something special, then you need to go to another jurisdiction. For example, it's darn near impossible to get Sazerac in MoCo, but for some reason it's easy to find in other counties, or in DC (never looked for it in VA).
Now for beer and wine, the county prefers to gouge its customers anyway it can. There is no bottle of beer or wine in the County that is cheaper than in other jurisdiction. The County tacks on easily a 20-30% upcharge. And because of the DLC, a lot of breweries and wineries simply refuse to do business with them because they know the DLC won't treat them well, will leave their product baking in the sun, and can't maintain a usable inventory system.
Now, let's say you're a restaurant manager. You want a delivery from the DLC... well, you have to wait for your ONE delivery a week. No special deliveries here. Also, let's say you wanted to order 4 bottles of a really awesome and expensive wine to add to your selection. You can't do that in the County, because the DLC only sells whole cases. They are also selling beer & wine to restaurants at inflated prices, I mean essentially the same price that DC restaurants will charge their patrons...
You commented that we should be concerned about big liquor (ie Inbev) taking over distribution and doing an end around on the consumer selection made available. Yes, we as consumers should be concerned about their nefarious ways, however this is an issue to take up with the federal government, not the County. (seriously, people do need to learn what Inbev is trying to do to stifle competition, and please write your fed govt representatives and Senators to voice your displeasure agains their attempted monopoly.)
In the end, we're in the same boat, we just need to be sure we're speaking the same language and understand what we're up against here.
Cheers!
7:20: I think we are in agreement on the issue at hand, but I do want to clarify that this is not the first article I've written on the topic. In fact, that's how I know about the Maker's Mark failed delivery from 2014, from a previous piece I wrote. Am I going to serve as a point man for every little self-promoting public thought a councilmember wants disseminated on this topic? Absolutely not. Have readers here been, and will continue to be kept, apprised of the actual facts and relevant developments in the liquor debate? Absolutely.
re: Anon @ 11:53 -- I will disagree about the wine prices also, but since I'm not where I can pull up the data properly to make the argument, you will have to wait for me to respond on that one. :-)
In regards to "this is an issue to take up with the federal government"...I would THINK that regulation of distributors is actually a state task, not federal, so effort would have to go that way.
BTW...is there anything stopping restaurants from going to a DLC store to buy bottles incognito? If not, given the markups restaurants charge anyway, maybe for that "special rare" bottle they want to offer, they should go that way... hmmmm...
Hopefully the County will deregulate some of the alcohol sales. The model in Virginia seems to work pretty good. The state controls the actual liquor sales while the beer and wine can be sold at the grocery stores, 7-11's, Targets etc. While I myself may not agree with a lot of the comment section banter and overall tone of the articles, I gotta give Dyer his credit for keeping up the reporting on this issue.
Be careful what you wish for. Replacing the DLC-- however despised-- with private liquor stores means higher MoCo taxes and fees and more development/redevelopment, such as the Westbard Sector plan. The County will need to replace the revenue stream.
Post a Comment