Hot dog, we got ourselves a liquor war!
In a blatant attempt to throw a wrench in Costco's continuing jihad against the state's monopoly over liquor sales, Gov. Gregoire signed a hastily sewn-together bill Wednesday that allows the state to solicit bids for control of liquor distribution, hoping tip voters toward defeating Initiative 1183 in the fall.
The bill included an emergency provision that lets the state to start seeking bids immediately, citing reasons of "public peace, health or safety" and impacts on state revenue. The funny thing about this bill is timing. If the legislature really thought that privatizing the distribution system (right now!) was a viable way to raise some cash, why did they wait until the very end of the session to ram it through? Why didn't this come up in December after voters repealed the candy tax? Oh that's right—Costco's Initiative 1183, which would totally dismantle the state-controlled liquor system, is headed to the November ballot—and it might just pass.
The legislature sees 1183 as a real threat to its liquor monopoly (which it is). The Costco-backed initiative (which would allow only large retailers to sell liquor, capitulating to grievances from law-enforcement groups about ease of access, among other compromises, probably stands a much better chance of passing than the two murky initiatives on last year's ballot.
By passing this "emergency" bill, Gregoire and the gang hope to convince voters that the state is in fact getting out of the liquor business. They are betting that they can get voters who are on the fence about this issue—who are uneasy about liquor in grocery stores and mini marts but also dislike the state monopoly—to be sufficiently satisfied by the distribution deal to vote against 1183 in the fall.
So in a sense, this is an emergency—for the state, at least, because it stands a real chance of losing the liquor monopoly this time around.
However, the troubling thing about this bill is that if the state does decide to lease the distribution mechanism (it doesn't have to, according to the legislation), it would simply turn a public monopoly into a private monopoly. Potentially, one distributor could control liquor distribution in Washington for 10 years, or however long the state decides a "long-term" contract is. This was what many voters—rightfully!—had beef with in last year's 1105. Oh yeah, and guess who sponsored the initial legislation? Sen. Mike Hewitt (R-Walla Walla), a former beer distributor! Granted, the state will still have control over product selection, but I find it hard to believe that this is what privatization promotes are pushing for.
The saga continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment