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:
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
Lazy Lightning Gear
BPAC Financials Archive
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.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I realize this is a bit late compared to other postings to this article but I just came across it today.
As an employee of Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar (hasn’t been Liquor Mart in more than 4 years) let me provide you all with some facts and inside information.
1) ID Scanning: Rosemount Liquor did install a driver’s license scanner to their cash registers as a result of failing a 2008 underage decoy sting. This was done to show the city council that we DO take underage drinking seriously and that this was an ‘extra’ step we would take to thawrt the possibility of it happening again.
I’d also like to inform the paranoid/conspirasist out there that NO PERSONAL INFORMATION (other then your name and D.O.B.) is ever stored on our data base nor is there ANY verification or information data exchanged with any State or government agency. All the card readers do is read the magnetic strip on the back of the driver’s license and displays on the screen what’s shown on the front side. This lets us verify it’s a legitimate ID (not doctored or fake). If the person’s age makes them under 21, then an alert displays and we can’t open the register. If everything is legit, ONLY your name and D.O.B. is stored on the register’s receipt transaction. This is so if the police should call into question whether we checked someone’s ID or not, we can go back to that sales transaction and show them that we did. It doesn’t store anything else. Because there are out of state IDs that don’t use the same magnetic strips as Minnesota’s Drivers License (Wis. and Mexico’s and Passports for example), and that fact that a number of the magnetic strips are rendered unreadable by wear and tear, we do have the ability to ‘manually’ enter just your D.O.B. in the system if we can’t scan the license. On ocassion, we may also manually enter the D.O.B. as a courtesy to customers who show us their ID rather than struggling to slide it out of a tight fitting wallet. Your data never leaves our server and we can’t access it for mailings or anything else. And like I said, ONLY your Name and D.O.B. is captured on the receipt record, absolutely nothing else!
2. The Mayor and a couple of council members DID attend a ribbon cutting at Rosemount Liquor and Wine Cellar when we moved into our current location in 2007. This act, predominantly politically based, is to get there picture in the paper or published elsewhere as having had something to do with bringing new business to the city (when in fact they had little to nothing to do with it other than to require the business to go through a bureaucratic process of permit forms and council approvals).
3. Owners of all (3) existing liquor stores (Shenanigans, Rosemount Liquor, and MGM) did show up at the council meeting held to approve the Liquor License Application for Cub Foods and voice their objections. We were all wondering WHY the council did away with existing ordinances regulating the number of liquor stores per XX,XXX residents and within XXXXX feet of any other one. They did away with these when MGM got their license approved. This having been done, was the council’s ‘rationale’ for NOT having any reason to deny Cub there license. When we suggested that they should rethink and reconsider re-enacting such stipulations (like other municipalities and Minneapolis and St. Paul have to control the number and proximity of off-sale stores), Mayor Droste commented that we were only looking out for our selves and trying to protect or improve our market value so that we could sell our stores for a larger profit. Yes we were concerned about market shares, but not for the reason of selling out. Dividing the same market (pie) between four stores vs. three definitely means smaller pieces of pie for everybody. When PCS, Inc. purchased Rosemount Liquors, the city ordinance stipulated there could only be (1) liquor store per 22,500 residents and that they had to be at least 2500 feet apart. The city changing the rules AFTER someone invests in a known business enviroment seemed unfair to us. Under the old ordinance, Rosemount would have been approaching the population point to add a 3rd liquor store at the time of Cub’s request to open one (but there were already three open). By the way, the three Cub representatives present at the council meeting the night of their license approval, didn’t have to get up or say anything. Seemed like they already knew the council members would approve their license application!
Now as a result of the council’s actions (or lack of them), Shenanigan’s has filed for bankruptcy protection and Rosemount Liquor’s owner has sold his store.
4. One last thing I’d like to state is that I believe the City ‘creates’ it’s own problem to solve with the underage decoy stings. They seem to think that Liquor selling establishments don’t care if they sell alcohol to minors or not and that we’re simply trying to make more money by doing so. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally can attest to the fact that my employer(s) have reiterated on numerous occassions the importance of checking IDs and NOT selling to underage customers. I also can attest to the fact that during my two and a half years working at Rosemount Liquor that I’ve only had about three incidences where I’ve asked for a young persons ID and they’ve not had it and I didn’t sell to them. This doesn’t excuse the fact that some of our store’s (former) employees didn’t properly deny the underage decoys on five occassions. Albeit (3) of the infractions were done at our old location while under a hired manager’s supervision. This manager was let go and the owner took over the daily operations once at the current location. It should also be noted that every employee is informed up front that their employment will be terminated immediately should they not properly ID and underage person. Under the owners management, both employees were terminated upon failing the decoy stings in 2008 and 2009. Punishing the business with fines and suspending their liquor license for numerous days, only hurts the business and does nothing to insure such infractions don’t happen again. Terminating the employee goes much further than either of these. Especially, given the fact that the employee is often charged and prosecuted for providing alcohol to an underage person which by itself carries a hefty fine and posts a misdemeanor on your criminal record. If “cities” had to abide by Rosemount’s penalities and close down whenever one of their employee’s committed a criminal offense, a good number of cities would be shut down. Minneapolis for example having two of their polilce officers prosecuted and convicted for armed robberies and child pornography. You shouldn’t hold the business (and someone’s life savings) accountable for the inappropriate actions of one of their employees. Fine them sure but shutting their business down, even temporarily goes too far.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Mark,
Great comment. One problem with it though: “NO PERSONAL INFORMATION (other then your name and D.O.B.) is ever stored on our data base nor is there ANY verification or information data exchanged with any State or government agency.”
My name, being as unique as it is coupled with my birth date is more than plenty to identify my specifically and can be used in conjunction with plenty of other pieces of information that a thief may procure. If you really want to abide by “no personal information” wipe it all.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
I agree, I find it ridiculous that liquor stores are tracking the customers that buy from their establishment for later presentation to police officers. It really is none of their business. If the software in the register prevents a “sale” for a ID that is not of age, I don’t see a point in tracking any information at all.