Liquor Depot trying to shut down WineINK to protect "vulnerable members of society"

[jtfrogger]

So, a liquor store that is open until 2am daily is trying to shutdown a boutique wine store that closes anywhere from 5pm to 7pm (depending on the day) in order to prevent "increased access to vulnerable members of society".

Will McDonald's try to shut down sit-down restaurants because having too many restaurants makes people fat?

Here is the info from Wine Ink: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/W...id=G6MlrEQ_hIA

The quote I picked above is part of the four page rambling from Liquor Depot's lawyer from Calgary SDAB. The specific PDF that includes their letter is here.

I suppose they have a lawyer on staff that is mostly there to try to shut down their competition. That is pretty sad.

[calgarywinning]

Wow, this is an eyeopener.

I try to go out of my way to avoid Liquor Barn and their 5 to 15% higher prices on all product, but now I will be sure to.

Also, their wine selection stinks. I'm sure the owner/management team could give a crap less about wine as they seem to stock deals from vineyards/distribution over wine that taste good.

Boo! on Liquor Depot

[Slava]

Tough call though; I can see them not wanting a 'cold beer' store across the road, or another generic liquor store or whatever. How many different variations of the same thing do we need within a couple blocks?

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Tough call though; I can see them not wanting a 'cold beer' store across the road, or another generic liquor store or whatever. How many different variations of the same thing do we need within a couple blocks?

Is this not what the free market, capitalism and competition are all about though?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Titan

Is this not what the free market, capitalism and competition are all about though?

Well there is that, and I agree with that idea to a point. I know I would want to stop certain businesses from setting up shop next door to mine. An adult video store, 'massage' parlour, etc. are legal, but hardly what I want located next to my business. Those are extreme examples, but I think that there is still a free-market argument in those cases as well?

[TurnedTheCorner]

Liquor Depot's legal maneuvers are unseemly and give me a negative view of it. WineInk's public campaign of whining and bleating about it is unseemly and give me an unseemly view of it. Hopefully they both go out of business when a newer, better liquor store opens nearby.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well there is that, and I agree with that idea to a point. I know I would want to stop certain businesses from setting up shop next door to mine. An adult video store, 'massage' parlour, etc. are legal, but hardly what I want located next to my business. Those are extreme examples, but I think that there is still a free-market argument in those cases as well?

And that is where regulation meets the market. I think pure free market is the road to ruin but in the case of likes, liquor stores, fill your boots. Is it more harmful to have a XXX store beside other businesses? If yes, they are not allowed. That is the role of the planning dept of the local municipality. As horribly inefficient as they may be, they are critical.

In your job, for example, which is also my industry, an unfettered free market would result in absolute ruin for all but the very few in a very short time. Regulations allow you to make a nice living, provide a valuable service and protect the vulnerable. All while allowing capital to be available to the "free market" types.

[GGG]

The current bylaw is that there can't be more than one liquor store within 300m of another. WinInk appealed this and was allowed to open with the condition that they were only allowed to sell wine. One of the arguments that they made was that they were providing a unique service that wasn't offered.

They opened their business on the basis of this restriction. So it isn't that liquor depot is trying to shut them down it is just trying to have there business limited to what it was approved for in the initial application.

An application which liquor barn didn't oppose.

I think the 300m bylaw is stupid though especially in the beltline where density is higher but I don't see why liquor depot shouldn't oppose the change. I would do the same if it were my business. The rules that restrict competition increase the value of liquor depots business. Either get rid of the rule or enforce it.

I would bet if another high end wine store tried to open right beside WineInk they would be making the exact same arguments to try to protect their business.

[SebC]

Sure you're better off as a business owner if you are protected from competition. As a society, we are better off with a competitive market. One might argue that booze has negative externalities and therefore should be priced at higher than market value, but then the way to achieve that is with sin taxes so that the value of the higher pricing, rather than to a private business owner through the enforcement of a monopoly. For any business to feel entitled to a monopolopy on anything other than a product that is has invented/created is patently ridiculous.

[Slava]

Businesses do this sort of thing all the time though. Its just sensible. A couple years ago we had a great location picked out, but a bank didn't want us in there, and that's their prerogative (in this particular case) because they viewed us as direct competition. It makes complete sense to me.

[troutman]

Electric Avenue worked because all the bars were in one place. Now 17th. All the furniture stores are on 11th. Destination shopping.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by GGG

The current bylaw is that there can't be more than one liquor store within 300m of another. WinInk appealed this and was allowed to open with the condition that they were only allowed to sell wine. One of the arguments that they made was that they were providing a unique service that wasn't offered.

They opened their business on the basis of this restriction. So it isn't that liquor depot is trying to shut them down it is just trying to have there business limited to what it was approved for in the initial application.

An application which liquor barn didn't oppose.

I think the 300m bylaw is stupid though especially in the beltline where density is higher but I don't see why liquor depot shouldn't oppose the change. I would do the same if it were my business. The rules that restrict competition increase the value of liquor depots business. Either get rid of the rule or enforce it.

I would bet if another high end wine store tried to open right beside WineInk they would be making the exact same arguments to try to protect their business.

There are two appeals. One of them is Wine Ink asking to remove the restriction of selling beer & spirits. The other is Liquor Depot appealing the existing approval. If Liquor Depot was only opposing the beer & spirit change, I would at least understand that. They want Wine Ink out completely. Read their letter, it is full of crazy.

Saying that the rules should either be enforced or changed is too simplistic. The rules are being enforced. The rules are that in order to open another liquor store within 300 metres you need to get special permission from the city. That is a much more reasonable process than trying to write rules to handle every possible situation in the by-law. It makes sense to have slightly different rules in the heart of Beltline than way out in the suburbs.

Also, Liquor Depot is 317 metres away from Wine Ink. They are not even within the range of being protected. They are 199 metres from another wine store, but The Wine Shop isn't the one making the complaint.

Originally Posted by Slava

Businesses do this sort of thing all the time though. Its just sensible. A couple years ago we had a great location picked out, but a bank didn't want us in there, and that's their prerogative (in this particular case) because they viewed us as direct competition. It makes complete sense to me.

I think there has to be reason applied. In the case of your business, I think there is much more overlap with a bank than there is with Liquor Depot & Wine Ink. Also, this isn't an appeal of the first application, this is an appeal on the renewal. The arguments in the letter are ridiculous, in my mind.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by troutman

Electric Avenue worked because all the bars were in one place. Now 17th. All the furniture stores are on 11th. Destination shopping.

Apples and oranges, imo. A bar district makes sense because of the district vibe, barhopping etc. A furniture store district makes sense because people are making major purchases and every furniture store offers different furnishings.

A liqour store district would be ridiculous, as for 95% of people, buying alcohol isn't a "destination shopping" event. You go to the liqour store and you buy your liqour. People may save a few bucks on liqour by looking at flyers and going to a certain liqour store, but not very many people physically go to more than one liqour store.


*Except solo liqour in Calgary, where a 12 pack of Heinikin comes to $33 after tax. Screw those guys.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

Businesses do this sort of thing all the time though. Its just sensible. A couple years ago we had a great location picked out, but a bank didn't want us in there, and that's their prerogative (in this particular case) because they viewed us as direct competition. It makes complete sense to me.

Oh it's entirely sensible for the business. But putting the mechanisms in place for the business to use is not sensible for a society.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Oh it's entirely sensible for the business. But putting the mechanisms in place for the business to use is not sensible for a society.

Why not? I get the impression that people just like a wine store as opposed to a liquor store here. The wine store sounds upscale and cool, whereas the liquor store is selling Lucky Lager or whatever and isn't as cool. Would everyone feel the same way if this was Wine Ink trying to block a general liquor store?

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by calgarywinning

Wow, this is an eyeopener.

I try to go out of my way to avoid Liquor Barn and their 5 to 15% higher prices on all product, but now I will be sure to.

Also, their wine selection stinks. I'm sure the owner/management team could give a crap less about wine as they seem to stock deals from vineyards/distribution over wine that taste good.

Boo! on Liquor Depot

Ya that place sucks. Worked there for 2 years while in university, people would always complain to me about the prices. I'd just say "Ya, if I didn't work here I wouldn't shop here either". They usually didn't know what to say to that.

And if LB is so concerned about enabling alcoholics, then maybe they should stop bringing in hundreds of 50 and 200ml minis and putting them right in front of the counter. You wouldn't believe how many people that came in mid-week, in the middle of the day, in work clothes, to buy those and presumably sneak em in their drinks at work.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Slava

Why not? I get the impression that people just like a wine store as opposed to a liquor store here. The wine store sounds upscale and cool, whereas the liquor store is selling Lucky Lager or whatever and isn't as cool. Would everyone feel the same way if this was Wine Ink trying to block a general liquor store?

I think they are very different stores. I would guess less than 5% of the inventory of Liquor Depot is available at Wine Ink. One sells mainstream products, and the other sells more niche products. If Wine Ink was trying to stop Liquor Depot with the same rationale, I would think that they were in the wrong too.

The funny thing, is that the only liquor store within 300 metres of Wine Ink is The Wine Shop. They haven't weighed in officially as far as I know. But I would put them as a very direct competitor to Wine Ink with similar clientele.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well there is that, and I agree with that idea to a point. I know I would want to stop certain businesses from setting up shop next door to mine. An adult video store, 'massage' parlour, etc. are legal, but hardly what I want located next to my business. Those are extreme examples, but I think that there is still a free-market argument in those cases as well?

When we signed a deal to rent a part of the block mall, part of the agreement was that we were the only kitchen cabinet showroom allowed to rent there while our contract was still viable.

There are also other parts of the contract that I won't mention here that are more or less what you mentioned above.

That being said, that was a contract we signed with a private landlord. We wouldn't like it if a competitive business set up shop across the street, but there is really nothing we could do about it. And there shouldn't be.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Apples and oranges, imo. A bar district makes sense because of the district vibe, barhopping etc. A furniture store district makes sense because people are making major purchases and every furniture store offers different furnishings.

A liqour store district would be ridiculous, as for 95% of people, buying alcohol isn't a "destination shopping" event. You go to the liqour store and you buy your liqour. People may save a few bucks on liqour by looking at flyers and going to a certain liqour store, but not very many people physically go to more than one liqour store.

However, if the density of an area is such that multiple liquor stores could be sustained within the current exclusion radius, then I think the market should be allowed to decide that.

Originally Posted by Slava

Why not? I get the impression that people just like a wine store as opposed to a liquor store here. The wine store sounds upscale and cool, whereas the liquor store is selling Lucky Lager or whatever and isn't as cool. Would everyone feel the same way if this was Wine Ink trying to block a general liquor store?

Why not? Because you improve quality of life by having more nearby amenities. Because you have higher consumer surplus in an efficient economy. The reason why society shouldn't be giving liquor stores power to block competing business stores are all the same reasons why we have all kinds of anti-trust laws. A bunch of mini-monopolies makes us a slightly poorer city.

If liquor is considered to be a burden on society, then the cost should be increased by increasing taxes on it, so that society reaps the benefits of the higher price to offset the burden rather than granting business anti-competitive rights and having the benefits of the higher price go to the business owner.

If a specialty liquor store was trying to block a general liquor store in my community, I would absolutely object to that. It is a local amenity that I'd be missing out on (along with potentially more selection or lower prices).

[Azure]

Is there a specific reason there is a restriction on how close a liquor store can be in Alberta?

And do those restrictions apply to other stores? Like Walmart?