New York's columnists and
editorial writers support allowing the sale of wine in food stores
Buffalo
News: Editorial, March 7, 2009
. . . there is evidence from the other 35 states that
do allow supermarket wine sales that wineries can benefit and that
the impact would not be that draconian on smaller stores, which
still would hold a monopoly on liquor sales and still can offer
better selections, knowledgeable sales staff and better service.
New York
now ranks 47th in the number of places per capita where wine can be
bought, and states with supermarket sales also have more liquor
stores. . . . If New York
retailers did ignore
New York wineries, they would
be committing an act of astounding stupidity. Reported experiences
elsewhere suggest that more wine sales are good news for home-state
wine makers and their suppliers, where new jobs could easily
overwhelm any losses from liquor stores closings.
Daily News: Bill Hammond column, March 3, 2009
. . . . There's no good reason that the store where you
buy a T-bone steak can’t also sell you a Cabernet to go with it. . .
. But thanks to
New York’s antiquated, Prohibition-
era alcohol control laws, grocery stores can sell beer but not wine.
And liquor stores can sell wine and the hard stuff — and pretty much
nothing else. . . . Overhauling these laws would make life easier
for almost everyone, boost the economy and raise a few bucks for our
cash strapped state government in the bargain. . . .
Thirty-five other states already allow wine sales in grocery stores.
It’s high time that New York
joined the party.
Crain’s (New York): March 1, 2009
. . . . Thirty-five states allow grocery stores to sell
wine. All of them have more wine outlets per capita than New York, which ranks 47th in
the country. California, with twice as many people, has six times
the number of wine outlets. . . . If the idea is approved, consumers
would enjoy lower prices and more convenience. New York's wine
industry, which desperately needs new markets in the state if it is
to grow, would also benefit by increasing its distribution network.
Albany
Times Union: Fred
LeBrun Column, February 15, 2009
The advantages of New York selling wine in grocery
stores, particularly in these economically off-the-cliff times, are
so obvious and overwhelming as to be self-evident. New York
consumers would instantly encounter vastly more choice and
convenience in terms of availability, which in turn translates into
more wine sales, happier drinkers, more state sales tax and far more
outlets for the state wine industry. Who could argue? . . . Wines in
grocery stores is a no-brainer. Let's have it this year.
Albany
Times Union:
Editorial, December 19, 2008
. . . . What can be more broadly described as an
unreasonable restriction on commerce is one more thing
New York can't afford with a
$15.4 billion deficit. . . . As for the economics of wine sales, the
governor's proposal can only be a boon for wine producers. In New York,
that's a huge yet often overlooked industry. The industry estimates
that being able to sell its products in more stores across the state
would mean a 20 percent increase in sales. Mr. Paterson wins
this argument. Let's open up the vineyards accordingly.
Wine Spectator: Mitch Frank, March 6, 2009
. . . . Why such a firestorm over the idea of selling
wine in the next aisle over from dishwasher detergent? After all, 35
states currently allow wine sales in grocery stores. But New York's wine laws are a
vestige of Prohibition. State regulations currently limit beer sales
to the state's 19,000 grocery stores and wine and liquor sales to
the 2,400 liquor stores. [Supermarket industry groups] say wine
sections in 19,000 stores will create 2,000 new jobs. They also say
they've polled their customers, and more than 70 percent support the
idea. They point out that liquor stores still exist and still make
money in the states where supermarkets can sell wine. And wider
access to wine should increase sales by 20 percent, they estimate.
Oneonta Daily Star: Editorial, February 16, 2009
Liquor store owners compare themselves to a small
hardware store that is forced out by a big-box competitor, but
there's fault in this analogy. Large home-supply chains prosper by
offering more selection. Large grocery store chains, on the other
hand, are likely to stock a small selection of big-name wines.
Independent liquor stores can offer more diversity, better respond
to consumer demand, and have a knowledge of wine that a store clerk
likely would not. . . .
Schenectady
Gazette: Editorial, February 12, 2009
. . . .Expanding wine sales beyond liquor stores. . .
would raise more badly needed money for the state by increasing
sales of all wines, including those produced in
New York, and license fees.
Watertown
Daily Times: Editorial, January 31, 2009
Gov. David A. Paterson's proposal to permit wine sales
in grocery stores would spur competition and be good for consumers.
. . . New York
would join 35 other states that already permit wine sales in grocery
stores. The proposal would benefit the state's $3.4 billion wine and
grape industry by providing wider access to state-produced wines.
Wine sales could grow as much as 20 percent in the first year,
according to Food Industry Alliance estimates.
Rochester
Business Journal: Editorial, February 27, 2009
Is there a compelling reason to preserve the wine-sale
monopoly now granted to liquor and wine stores and to wineries? No,
there is not. . . . Protectionism in the defense of free enterprise,
of course, makes no sense. Nearly all small firms face larger, more
powerful competitors; to survive they must be smarter, faster,
better. Grocery stores should be free to sell wine, period. But
likewise, liquor stores should be permitted to sell beer, food items
and other products that now are off-limits for them. Fair
competition brings out the best in superior companies of all sizes.
And let's not forget that it benefits consumers.