Quotulatiousness

May 1, 2010

Call out the inspectors

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Health, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:50

A busybody manages to create a lot of new jobs in San Diego County with one little phone call:

On Tuesday, we were surprised inspected by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. The two inspectors were sent out to visit our facilities (and other breweries in San Diego) as a patron had lodged a complaint about local tasting rooms. So I’d like to take a moment to thank that one person who felt it was important to lodge a complaint about brewery tasting rooms all over San Diego. Apparently they were concerned that we didn’t have a GIANT BLUE “A” on our cold boxes!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

You see, my fellow brewers and brewery owners are now having our hands forced (in the name of public safety) to go through the plan check and approval phase so that all of us can earn Health Permits for our tasting rooms.

What’s even better and the reason we’re all so thankful for your efforts today is that Port Brewing and The Lost Abbey has been issued a cease and desist for the sampling of beer in our tasting room. Because, as we all know, beer is a public nuisance laced with nasty things that can kill you!

I personally want to extend my gratitude to that consumer who felt this industry needed more regulatory agencies knocking on our doors. (The Health Department has never been interested in us before this call) Muchas Gracias Amigo (or Amiga) wherever you might be. There are breweries all over the City of San Diego who are now going to have to spend thousands of dollars on repairs that at best are “marginally justified.”

What follows is a long list of local businesses that will be seeing more income from San Diego breweries, as they all scramble to get into compliance with regulations they didn’t have to worry about until now. Before you consider this is a good thing, make sure you read up on the broken window fallacy (scroll down to paragraph 1.6).

January 27, 2010

Where Virginia is headed, will Ontario follow?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Law, Wine — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:31

November 13, 2009

Virginia to privatize their state-run liquor stores?

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Law, Wine — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:35

Katherine Mangu-Ward on the prospect of Virginia selling off their state-owned liquor stores:

Virginia is one of 18 states where the government is the monopoly rumrunner. Supermarkets, gourmet shops, and corner stores are all forbidden to sell liquor. But Bob McDonnell, the newly-elected Republican governor, has promised to end the monopoly on liquor sales in the Old Dominion.

This bold gesture isn’t because McDonnell is an especially thoroughgoing libertarian; there are plenty of other areas where he’d like to see more state involvement in the private lives of citizens, not less. This isn’t a 12-step program to help the commonwealth go cold turkey on alcohol money either. McDonnell has no intention of letting Virginia’s bottle-based income fall below its current levels of more than $100 million a year. In fact, part of the reason McDonnell is considering privatization at all is that he is looking for cash to spend on transportation infrastructure. He predicts that selling off the state’s 334 liquor stores to private players and gathering licensing fees from more private sellers will bring in $500 million in the short run, while leaving long-run income intact. (The Washington Post remains unconvinced, noting that McDonnell’s figures may be too optimistic.)

But no matter what the political and budgetary machinations, Virginians are unlikely to wind up paying more for their rotgut, and they are very likely to wind up with a better selection and a relatively skeeze-free shopping experience. Commonwealth officials can focus on governing a large landmass without having to fuss with the details of running a liquor empire. And the move may even represent a net gain for the state budget in the future when the state sheds responsibility for ABC employee benefits and pensions, and starts bringing in real estate and other tax revenue from the privatized stores.

I’ve written about Ontario’s LCBO and the (dim) hopes of privatization at the old blog. In 2004, there was a brief flurry of discussion on privatizing the LCBO:

For those of you who don’t live in Ontario, the LCBO is the government-run monopoly provider of almost all alcoholic beverages except beer and wine, which are sold through the Brewers Retail, now operating under the name “The Beer Store” and through individual winery-owned wine stores, respectively. Both the LCBO and the Brewers Retail were set up after the repeal of prohibition in Ontario to control the sale and distribution of alcohol in the province. The LCBO is government-owned, while the Brewers Retail is owned by the major breweries (Labatt, Molson, & Sleeman).

A few elections ago, the Ontario government under Premier Mike Harris started talking about getting the government out of the liquor business. The LCBO, which up until that point had operated like a sluggish version of the Post Office, suddenly had plenty of incentive to try appealing to their customers. Until the threat of privatization, the LCBO was notorious for poor service, lousy retail practices, and surly staff. Until the 1980’s, many LCBO outlets were run exactly like a warehouse: you didn’t actually get to see what was for sale, you only had a grubby list of current stock from which to write down your selections on pick tickets, which were then (eventually) filled by the staff.

If the intent was to make buying a bottle of wine feel grubby, seamy, and uncomfortable, they were masters of the craft. No shopper freshly arrived from behind the Iron Curtain would fail to recognize the atmosphere in an old LCBO outlet.

During the 1980’s, most LCBO stores finally became self-service, which required some attempt by the staff to stock shelves, mop the floors, and generally behave a bit more like a normal retail operation. It took quite some time for the atmosphere to become any more congenial or welcoming, as the staff were all unionized and most had worked there for years under the old regime — you might almost say that they had to die off and be replaced by younger employees who didn’t remember the “good old days”.

To return to the early 1990’s, the LCBO had gone through massive changes (from their own point of view), but were still far behind the times. The threat of being sold to the private sector seems to have operated as a massive injection of adrenalin to the corporate heart: the LCBO suddenly became serious about serving the customer, expanding their services, making themselves more customer-friendly and providing their staff with proper training.

In the end, the Tory government decided that they preferred the direct stream of profits from the LCBO monopoly and backed away from their privatization plans. To my amazement (and probably that of most impartial observers), the LCBO did not immediately fall back into their bad old habits: they continued the modernization that had already taken them so far from their roots.

Today, the LCBO is almost unrecognizable as the Stalinist bureaucracy of the 1960s and 70s. Their staff are generally friendly, helpful, and (mirabile dictu) know far more about their products than ever before.

All that being said, I still am happy to hear that the current government is talking about privatization again. The LCBO is better than it used to be, and continues to improve, but they are still a monopoly provider with little real competition. I don’t pretend that a badly run sale might well end up (in the short-to-medium term) reducing the variety of alcoholic products for sale in Ontario, but having competing retailing channels would (in the long term) produce a healthier market with the competitors striving to attract more customers by better service, wider selection or even (dare we say it) lower prices.

Of course, 2005 came and went, with no movement in the direction of privatization, and it won’t happen under the current provincial government. The revenue stream is still too good for the province to give up.

October 9, 2009

Australian livers: industrial strength

Filed under: Australia, Randomness — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:05

I’m probably admitting that I’m a lightweight here, but a “limit” of 24 cans of beer per day seems, well, not actually a limit:

Australian motorsport fans are ruing militant alcohol consumption guidelines at one of the country’s most popular races – after being limited to a mere 24 cans of beer a day.

Police in charge of the Bathurst 1,000 car race in Bathurst, New South Wales, issued the restrictions before the start of the four-day event this Thursday.

Spectators are limited to one 24-can case each of full-strength beer, although if revellers are willing to consume lower-strength alcohol (3.5% abv or less) they will be entitled to a more satisfactory 36 cans.

Wine lovers have not escaped the heavy hand of the law either, being restricted to a punitive four litres a day.

<sarcasm>A mere four litres? How do they survive?</sarcasm>

H/T to “Fishplate” for the link.

September 12, 2009

QotD: The Muse of Booze

Filed under: Humour, Quotations, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 18:06

It’s reasonably well known that the arts of brewing and fermenting arose in nice time for the dawn of human civilization (there are ancient poems and mosaics and that sort of thing, dedicated to the celebration of the fact), but it’s at least as notorious that an open flask of alcohol is a mouth that can lead to hell as well as heaven. This being the case — and one day we shall work out the etymology that leads us to use the simple Italian word for a bottle, fiasco, in the way that we do — then it is as well to have a true Virgil to be our guide through the regions infernal as well as paradisiac.

The late Sir Kingsley Amis (who wrote these slender but thoughtful volumes before receiving his knighthood and who was also the expert to consult on things like the derivation of fiasco) was what the Irish call “your man” when it came to the subject of drink.

Christopher Hitchens, “The Muse of Booze”, Everyday Drinking: The Distilled Kingsley Amis, 2008

August 24, 2009

The odd economics of post-Prohibition Pennsylvania liquor laws

Filed under: Economics, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 19:44

I’d just finished dinner at a restaurant within a short walk of my hotel, and I thought it’d be nice to have another beer when I got back to the hotel (in Pennsylvania, you buy less-than-case amounts of beer from licensed bars). I went up to the bar, and ordered six Sam Adams. The server looked at me a bit oddly, then went back to pick up my order.

When she came back, she said, “You know this is going to be very expensive, don’t you?”
“Uh, just how expensive are we talking here?
“Well, six bottles at $4 per bottle expensive. You could probably buy a case for that at [name of nearby beer warehouse].”

Two gents at the bar chime in that I’m crazy to pay that kind of money for just six beers, but they’d happily take any extras from the case I should buy at [nearby beer warehouse].

The three of them then gave me carefully simple instructions on how to find my way to [nearby beer warehouse], where I picked up this:

HopDevil

One of the most hoppy IPA brews I’ve ever tasted . . . for slightly more than what I would have had to pay for six at the bar.

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress