According to this article over from the Rosemount Town Pages, Rosemount’s mayor as well as some other unnamed city staff members were in attendance at the grand opening of the hotly contested Cub liquor store. I find it a little hard to believe that in a town that has so many liquor stores and apparent problems with underage sales that the mayor would bother to be at the ribbon cutting for yet another liquor store.
Back in April, Shenanigan’s and Liquor Mart went before the Rosemount City Council and said that they were against the application for the new Cub liquor store because of the possibility for increased crime. Unfortunately for them they did little to prove that an increase in crime would occur because of the Cub liquor store but they did show that the competition could possibly hurt them in the long run. While I said that there are way for them to differentiate themselves from Cub’s mass market appeal and stay competitive, I haven’t seen much in the way of changes at Shenanigan’s to show that they have done anything to ramp up their offerings prior to Cub’s opening. It’s really unfortunate as they are one of the only liquor stores that I will frequent because of their lower costs and lack of ID scanning.
Speaking of ID scanning, back in November Rosemount’s City Council approved sanctions against one of the Rosemount liquor stores for their underage sales problems. While the store complained about the harsh penalties which really didn’t even exist, I was more concerned with the fact that the City Council was forcing a business to use ID scanners which store personal information in an easy to steal unit which can lead to ID theft. While I think that it’s great that the City Council is doing what it thinks it can to curb underage consumption, I think it’s going about it the wrong way.
The biggest problem I have with the mayor and city staff being at a grand opening of a Cub liquor is the fact that it shows two things:
1. Rosemount likes having four liquor stores within a mile of each other. While Burnsville’s regulation on liquor stores might be a little too harsh (one liquor store per one mile radius), Rosemount might be pushing it with their very high concentration in one little area. Rosemount’s a big place, I think the residents would be happier if you spread them out a bit.
2. Rosemount loves a big chain over the little guys. They have proven it by approving the liquor measure (I agreed with the approval and still do) and showing up at a grand opening for a liquor store owned by Cub. I don’t have any counts but I’d like to know how many times the mayor has shown up at other liquor store grand opening events. Anyone know? If he hasn’t done it for all of them then I think there’s something a little sad about the entire thing, don’t you?
What do you think about the Rosemount mayor showing up and supporting Cub’s contested competition in the liquor store market? Do you think that the mayor should have skipped the ribbon cutting or do you believe that this was a good idea to support more businesses in the area? Whatever you think go ahead and comment on and let us know what you have to say!
Related posts:
Lazy Lightning Store
Month's Top 5 Commenters
BPAC Financials Archive
Dakota Criminal Complaints
Loading ...
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
I’ve never been able to understand Minnesota’s infatuation with liquor distribution and the regulations. A bad example of lobbiests putting special interests ahead of what people want.
So, personally, i agree with you, the mayor should stay away from ribbon cuttings that demonstrate city preferences to certain businesses.
I strongly disagree with you on the idea that you can have too many liquor stores in a given area. (or Targets for that matter:) In the liquor store case, in many other states you would be able to get a bottle at the grocery store, at the Wal-Greens, at the liquor store, and at the Holiday when you’re getting gas. More outlets for booze creates more of a free market, let people choose where they go for their booze. And, I don’t really buy into the idea that more liquor stores means more crime, more alcoholics etc. If you have one store per mile the drinkers are going to find them, with one every 10 feet the teetotalers are going avoid them..
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:17 am
I think the key to this is was the Mayor invited to Cub, or did the Mayor invite himself? Then the next question is did any of the other business invite the Mayor to their grand opening, or any other event they have held?
In general I don’t think it is a good idea for the Mayor to endorse commercial openings like this unless they are part of a municipal program to draw business in or maybe they are donating 4% of all income to charity, something that is good for the public in general. Otherwise, it would seem much more appropriate for “business” leaders (Chamber of Commerce anyone?) to be patting a business on the back, rather than a Mayor.
I’m curious why ID scanners would be storing any information. I would think that an ID scanner should be setup so that it only does 1 thing. Compares the birthdate on the scanned ID with the current date, and lights up a RED light or GREEN light depending on if the ability to purchase alcohol. The system wouldn’t need to store the license number, it could simply report (for inclusion on the internal, and customer receipts) that a license was scanned, and it was accepted or rejected. Capturing anything more than that seems excessive.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 am
I think it is a great idea for the Mayor and elected officials to go to a ribbon cutting or ground breaking ceremony for any business that is investing money into their community and creating jobs and tax revenues for the City. It does not mean that the Mayor supports underage drinking or a proliferation of liquor stores, just that they are pro-business, pro-jobs, etc.
June 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
Mikeh wrote:
I agree and that’s why I don’t believe they should be forced on businesses by city councils.
todd wrote:
I think that there’s a problem here though. The other liquor stores complained (whether it’s valid or not won’t be seen for some time yet I’m sure) that they estimate that at least one of the other liquor stores will go out of business due to Cub’s new store. If the mayor is so into being “pro-jobs”, then he would understand the delicate balance that needs to be reached to ensure that job loss does not occur.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Agree with Sank here. This state has dated, protectionist liquor laws on its books. The liquor stores around here get complacent, because if anything, they don’t have enough competition. Which leads to higher prices, lack of selection and so-forth.
These guys are just afraid of the competition, because they don’t have much, and will throw out any bullshit excuse they can to try and stop it.
And, on that note, the mayor has no business showing up to this…
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 am
i kinda agree with todd about the mayor.
AND,
agree with Bill that how many other grand openings has the mayor been to? when they booted (relocated), out those businesses along 3 was the mayor in attendance at their new grand openings?
AND,
i checked out cub’s booze mart and there was NOTHING special in stock or that would draw me back unless it was a heck of a sale.
bb
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Well I checked out the new Cub Liquor and was quite suprised at the much larger selection compared to the Cub Liquor in Hastings, which is in a very small space. In addition I did notice the prices on the beer I usually purchase elsewhere (either Shenanigans or Rsmnt Liq. ) were a only a tad cheaper. Basically instead of 5.99 they were 5.88. It’s going to take a lot to get me to go back though, since I hate the congestion in that parking lot and I don’t shop for groceries at Cub.
Interesting flier I got in the mail from Rosemount Liquor saying you save 10% off your purchase just by showing a Cub receipt. 10% is pretty signifciant when you consider the somewhat low markup stores have on booze.
I think Droste is an idiot to begin with, but showing up at the Grand Opening was a mistake. I’m sure he’s just happy to see an empty storefront get filled and not thinking about the big picture.
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
A side note in reference to the suggestions about protectionist liquor laws and the various differences in state-by-state liquor regulations. Each state is given the power under the 21st amendment to the Constitution to set its own laws and regulate liquor, even to the extent that it would be unable to regulate other commerce. For example, states and municipalities would not be able to have an all-out monopoly on the sale of hardware items and running hardware stores (this would be a very questionable practice under current interpretation of the Commerce Clause). Cities are allowed, and some do have a total monopoly of liquor sales and liquor stores (e.g., Apple Valley) because the 21st amendment supersedes the Commerce Clause (generally, but there are exceptions about internet sale of liquor). That plus “special interests” and the complexity of post-prohibition history are why we have the liquor laws that we do.