According to this article in the Star Tribune and this one in the Pioneer Press, there are some people who are a little rowdy over the fact that Cub is thinking about opening its 18th liquor store in the metro adjacent to the Cub near the intersection of Diffley and Lexington in Eagan.
The opposition to this new liquor store includes those that already own liquor stores as well as a bunch of “save the children” folk who are up-in-arms over the fact that this liquor store will be about 300 feet from a school. Between these two groups there are enough people riled up to get their names and pointless quotes printed in the Star Tribune article.
Personally I don’t want Cub to build this liquor store because I don’t believe in chains being able to squeeze out the little guy but being that the City of Eagan seems to feel that this is acceptable in a free market economy, I just have to say that I’m glad it isn’t Eagan building another liquor store themselves and denying free market to its citizens… That said, I don’t agree with two of the three arguments presented in the Star Tribune article:
1. As many of you already know, I just don’t believe in the whole save the children bullshit as a liquor store, even if it were attached to a school, isn’t any more dangerous than a parent with a liquor cabinet in their home. People can carry on all they like but I guarantee you that a child in elementary school isn’t going to be longing to enter the building (wherever it is located) and will instead be wondering if some little bastard is going to give them a wedgie, steal their lunch money, or what Johnny and Suzie are doing at recess that day.
2. I am more inclined to listen to the woes of the local businessman who owns the liquor store in the same complex that Cub plans to place its own. This particular owner makes a good point that Cub could effectively put him out of business by pricing their liquor so low that he just can’t compete. Unfortunately, if the city doesn’t step in and put some limitations on the number of liquor stores permitted, like Burnsville who only allows a liquor store every one mile as the crow flies which has stalled talks with Costco, then there’s really nothing to stop this from happening. According to the Pioneer Press article, they feel that free market enterprise should occur and it shouldn’t be up to them to determine how that proceeds.
3. I really felt for the owner listed above but I can’t say that I agree with anything that Kory Krause, owner of a MGM Wine and Spirits about a mile away had to say:
In addition to the catastrophic effect a large new liquor store would have on several existing Eagan businesses, it would be bad for our community as well.
Oh yes, MGM Wine and Spirits, the “largest beer, wine and spirits retailer in Minnesota” is complaining that a Cub, which will have its 18th store (as opposed to the 20 or so stores they already operate around the metro) will ruin competition and hurt the city! Oh woe is MGM and its poor little stores.
So, what do you think about Cub’s plans on bringing in another liquor store to Eagan only 300 feet from a school and in the same strip mall as an already established, privately owned store? Do you agree that the City of Eagan should permit the second store or are you on the sides of either the small business owner who feels that the city should be involved in altering the free market or the side of the “save the children” people who feel that a liquor store that close to a school is somehow detrimental to school kids? However you feel about this one, comment on, I’d love to hear what you think.
Related posts:
Lazy Lightning Store
Month's Top 5 Commenters
BPAC Financials Archive
Dakota Criminal Complaints
Loading ...
February 6th, 2009 at 10:09 am
The whole Minnesota liquor store system is messed up anyway, why can’t we just buy beer and wine in groceries stores like many other states and why do many cities force liquor stores to close at 8 pm on weeknights?
People choose where to shop based on price, selection and convenience, if Cub outdoes the neighboring shop then the neighboring shop needs to change its strategy. Maybe having the best beer selection in Eagan (gotta love Blue Max in B’ville) or the biggest selection of vodkas, etc. A liquor store just over a mile to the east of the proposed Cub store focuses more on wine and microbreweries rather than Miller and Bud to differentiate its store.
The distance from a school issue is a joke. Maybe the school patrol can help the kiddes cross the busy street when all the all go pick up their six packs. I am glad to see the MGM owner didn’t complain about the school situation since there store is right next to a daycare.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Not to mention that Cliff Lake Montessori is right next to a liquor store and a Cub!
February 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
The mom and pop liquor stores are going to have to specialize. Kinda like Blue Max. From my perspective if you want “good” beer, go to Blue Max; but if you want cheap beer, go somewhere bigger. So I shop at Blue Max all the time; great place. We don’t all want a truckload of Miller Lite for bottom dollar.
As far as the specific Eagan situation. 17 sounds like a lot of liquor stores. If the city has a set of requirements for a liquor license, then the city council should follow the requirements. If the citizens want to amend the requirements, that would be tough but possible. What about all those other stores? It’s tough to not look like playing favorites. You can’t play favorites against a big chain just like you cannot against mom and pop. If you start that game, it becomes very subjective.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I more or less agree with what Koszmo said, but I will add one thing. Bill wrote, “This particular owner makes a good point that Cub could effectively put him out of business by pricing their liquor so low that he just can’t compete.”
Well, that’s exactly how a free market should work. Ultimately, the consumer wins and weak companies fail. The real problem is actually quite deeper than what you can see on the surface. All of the regulations the state puts on liquor stores increases the cost to enter the market and makes it much easier for a larger company, like Super Valu, to beat competition than a small family owned store. I will also agree that having specialized products is one path that has led to success (Blue Max).
February 6th, 2009 at 11:31 am
jf,
I suppose I should have said that I sympathize with the owner but I don’t think it’s wrong for him to close because of the competition. It just as easily could have been any other liquor store opening up in there causing that guy to lose his business. I just wish that it wasn’t competition from someone that’s backed by an operation that can throw money at it like Cub would be able to.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
It is a well known fact that children drive people to drink. I think putting liquor stores near schools is a time saver.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
^
|
|
|
WINNER.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“To Liquor, the cause of, and solution to all of life’s problems”
February 6th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Eagan has a lot of liquor stores relative to the surrounding suburbs. There’s four within five minutes of my house, and I don’t even know how many within ten minutes. Most of these are fairly close to homes or other areas frequented by children, so the school argument is just silly. Despite the concern some people have about a lot of liquor stores in an area, the relatively high number of stores has never caused an issue that I know of.
Just as I don’t think the city should operate liquor stores, so too do I think that they shouldn’t interfere with a business wanting to open one if they are following the laws and ordinances. This type of intervention wouldn’t be considered for other types of businesses, so I don’t think it should be for liquor stores either (it’s only an issue because the city has to approve it).
Increased competition is good for consumers, and the existing store can compete in other ways besides price (selection, service, etc). As it is, some of the existing liquor stores are pretty close together.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
First of all, it sounds like I need to check out Blue Max.
Wisconsin’s liquor laws make more sense in a couple ways. You can buy booze on Sunday and you can buy it in grocery stores. After living there for a while it seems really stupid to not allow grocery stores to have liquor departments. Especially in a case like this where Cub would be running two separate buildings right next to each other only because of the stupid state laws.
Also, why do we let the state tell us what days we can buy beer?
Last thing…Burnsville should figure out a way to make the Costco store work. I read that Costco has wanted to be in Burnsville for something like five years now. Burnsville has plenty of dead space around the Burnsville Center area and they have plenty of aging retail areas that could use some new life. I’m sure a store like that would also help generate some nice tax revenue for the city.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:55 am
John, I agree with you on all points. It’s stupid that I couldn’t buy a case of beer or bottle of wine today if I wanted to. Plus, grocery stores and convenience stores should be able to sell liquor if they want as well. I understand that some of the biggest opponents of changing the law in order to let them do so are the municipalities that operate liquor stores. They like having that tax revenue, but IMO that’s not a sufficient reason to let them have a monopoly in their cities. If they need tax revenue, let them get it through business growth.
As far as Costco goes, I think the best way to address that would be for Burnsville to drop its ordinance restricting liquor stores from being within a certain distance of each other, since I believe this is what has been holding it up (Costco wants to have an attached liquor store and the ordinance requires liquor stores to be no less than a mile from each other or something like that). But yeah, getting a Costco down here would be nice.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am
The liquor stores themselves are the biggest opponents of Sunday and grocery store sales. They don’t want to have to be open 7 days a week and they certainly don’t want to have to compete with beer being sold in the grocery stores.
Tim is correct. The issue with Burnsville is the 1 mile as the crow flies distance requirement between liquor stores. When people were saying that the number of liquor stores in Eagan is ridiculous, that rule keeps the number of liquor stores in Burnsville down too.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I think it’s incredibly lame I can’t pick up a bottle of wine at the grocery store to have with dinner. It doesn’t even make sense that “we” keep them separate.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
dawnmarie, just go to the Byerly’s in Eagan. The grocery and liquor store are virtually one in the same.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am
MSPD, it’s true they are adjacent, but any liquor store attached to a grocery store is subject to the same laws as liquor stores regarding when they can be open.
FWIW, I don’t think there are too many liquor stores in Eagan at all and don’t understand why someone would think there is.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Tim, oh, I suppose I misunderstood your comment, “Eagan has a lot of liquor stores relative to the surrounding suburbs. There’s four within five minutes of my house, and I don’t even know how many within ten minutes.” Sorry about that.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Tim,
I wasn’t talking about hours. I was responding to dawnmarie’s lament of not being able to pick up a bottle of wine at the grocery store. Unless she shops exclusively on Sundays, my point was that you can ESSENTIALLY get wine with your dinner groceries in several places throughout the Twin Cities, including Eagan.
I see selling liquor on Sundays as a different issue entirely.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
No problem, Bill.
MPSD, ah, I see what you meant now.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
MSPD, you’re right, but I think you’re underestimating my laziness :) I have a hard time driving to the Cub .25 miles from my house, and you want me to go to Eagan?! I jest, really, but my lament is more a lament over the stupidity of liquor laws in Minnesota. Cities are so concerned about how many liquor stores we have out of alleged “concern for the citizens” we wouldn’t want too many sins available, would we? When really, they’re just protecting their own interests. They don’t really care that it’s by an elem. school.
If they really cared about the citizens, they’d encourage true free enterprise and make it possible for people to choose their cable companies, power companies, and other general utilities. (I realize this is an extreme example, but it’s a point maker, IMO) Get rid of the real monopolies andget the heck out of the liquor business.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
dm, during a Burnsville City Council meeting the Cable monopoly stuff was discussed and BV said that they lowered their rates to attempt and attract new companies to their market. Unfortunately they have, as of yet, no additional takers.
While I despise the monopoly of utilities created, in part, by municipalities, I can’t say that it’s entirely their fault–like it is with liquor distribution.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I’m all for supporting the little guys when it comes to buying my bottles. Typically they’ll have a better selection of micro of craft beers, and be a little less expensive than the chain stores. As to where the stores are placed? I don’t care as long as one is near my home! In my town, There are two liquor stores, both within a stones throw (literally) of the District buildings, with nearby schools.
If the liquor stores are doing the correct process of checking ID’s then we have no problem. I know I will card a 10yr old trying to buy a bottle of Colt, it’s common sense. As long as the establishment does the due diligence to keep out those that aren’t supposed to be in there, I don’t care where the store is located. – I might not put one next to a gun shop, but otherwise, ..
February 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
dm, I was underestimating your laziness. ;-)
I agree that the liquor laws, as well as the prohibition on auto sales on Sunday are antiquated. (For what it’s worth, I’m also a supporter of transitioning to year-round schools, instead of the summer-off schedule tied back to the days of farming). I generally tend towards common sense in laws (which is why I’ll probably never be a politician).
The utilities are a bit of a different issue as there are bandwidth concerns as well as physical structure limitations. Some of this makes good sense — the government requires providers to organize in different ways because they can’t simply tear into the earth to lay cables unique to each provider.
Same goes for this stupid transition to digital TV. The whole purpose is to free up bandwidth for public safety and other uses. There are fairly good reasons why certain providers can serve certain markets in telecom and other utilities. It’s not always good for the consumer, but maybe a “necessary evil”.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I think the whole purpose of the DTV transition was to auction off the frequencies for billions to companies like Verizon.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
jf, that was the real reason. They excuse they gave was to open up spectrum. What the government failed to explain fully (especially by not fully funding the converter boxes) was that THE PEOPLE own the spectrum and not the government. “WE” should have received the benefit of the spectrum sale in full. None of it should have went anywhere but directly into our pockets.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Bill, Wouldn’t that have been nice!
To get the topic back on beer, I would also note that the Cellars is less than a mile from Cub Foods and also has a great beer selection. It’s not quite at the level of Blue Max, but worth checking out if you’re in the area.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:58 am
jf and koszmo are famous: http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_14343903 (no, I didn’t know about them using those quotes).
February 8th, 2010 at 10:00 am
The story would have been 1,000 times better if they used Mrs. Marcos quote from post #6.
Seriously, have reporters just pretty much given up on their jobs? Now instead of actually interviewing actual people, they just surf blog comments to beef up their articles?
I’m starting to think I put more work into my joke articles than they do into their real ones.
February 8th, 2010 at 10:03 am
I have to wonder about the timeline. What drove Melo to do that instead of either contacting me to see if I’d contact Koszmo or jf for him and why did the PiPress decide to recover news that was almost exactly a year old?
February 8th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I wonder if I could get a comment in a story like that if I said something really clever, observant, and profound in a blog post, but then had a really goofy handle like Captain McNinja or something like that.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
The inclusion of those year old quotes in this story is really odd.