Patch Poll: Should Pennsylvania Privatize the Sale of Wine and Spirits?
House Majority Leader Mike Turzai is pushing to get government out of the liquor business. What do you think?
Since July, Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai has pushed to get government out of the liquor business.
In a news conference, the legislator from Western Pennsylvania introduced House Bill 11, which calls for the privatization of wine and spirits sales on the wholesale and retail levels.
"We need to move Pennsylvania into the 21st century," said Turzai, whose 28th Legislative District comprises Pine, Richland, Marshall and McCandless townships and Bradford Woods and Franklin Park boroughs.
"House Bill 11 is about divestiture. House Bill 11 is about the consumer. It is about reasonable prices and better selection and more convenience. It is about upgrading law enforcement," said the Republican from Bradford Woods. "It is about moving from a public sector dinosaur into the modern 21st century."
Only two states, Pennsylvania and Utah, have complete control of all aspects of wine and spirits distribution, according to a report that the governor's budget office commissioned.
"Public Financial Management Inc. was retained by the Pennsylvania Governor’s Budget Office to conduct an analysis of the current operations of thePennsylvania Liquor Control Board and assess the potential for privatization of its wine and liquor wholesale and retail operations," the executive summary from the report states.
"In the end, the decision to privatize should, at its core, come down to a consideration of what is best for all citizens of the state and the consumers the system serves," the study concluded.
"A privatized system affords the state the best opportunity to improve on the current system and optimize the financial benefits for its citizens," according to the study.
Not everyone agrees that House Bill 11 is the way to go.
The union that represents state liquor store managers has lobbied against the bill; two Pennsylvania chapters of the United Food Commercial Workers, representing state store employees, also oppose the bill, the 90.5 radio story states.
"The Independent State Store Union says that the bill’s provision to allow beer distributors to begin selling wine will cause the state store system to slowly diminish," according to the story.
The ISSU also opposes the bill.
In a December news release, Rep. Dante Santoni, D-Berks, said Democrats on the House Liquor Control Committee "remain opposed to the proposal and voted against its release from committee, but we were able to temper some of the extreme provisions included in the original bill."
"I remain concerned about the direction of this bill," said Santoni, the Democratic chairman of the House Liquor Control Committee. "I believe my amendment in committee will provide modernization initiatives not included in the original legislation."
House Bill 11 originally called for the state to close and sell its wine and spirits shops and auction 1,250 retail licenses to private operators, allocated by county, according to population, Santoni's news release stated.
Taxes on liquor would be restructured, and a limited number of wholesale licenses would be issued to distributors who sign contracts with producers.
"The current version of H.B. 11 does not divest the state store system of either the wholesale or retail sales of wine and spirits but does allow for competition in the sale of wine by allowing private businesses to obtain both wholesale and retail licenses to compete with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, or PLCB. There would be no limit on the number of licenses available," according to Santoni's statement.
What do you think of privatization efforts? Please tell us in the comments. Thank you!
Roger
1:51 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
To those voting "NO" (leaving the current system in place), what other business enterprises should the PA government be running? What is unique about the liquor industry? If the reason is "regulations," then do you suggest other industries have their regulations lifted?
AParent
2:58 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Not so fast! If you could convince me that a privatized Beer and Wine sales would not increase the rate of teen drunk driving deaths like it is in other states, I would be in favor of it.
JohnRz
8:02 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
The difference is alcohol, like cocaine and meth, is a mind altering drug. It is the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the US, killing more people each year than firearms and all the illegal drugs combined. But if your point was just that the state shouldn't be selling milk I would agree.
dguyfhi
4:53 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
Please do research before discussing underage drinking and using it against the bill. Pennsylvania is one of the worst states in the country for underage drinking. The penalties are vast for private owners, while you are simply entrusting these state workers. The only thing holding this bill up is the union.
JohnRz
8:05 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
Where the heck did you get that? Stats show Pa. as about average but that is really good when you control for the large number of college students compared to other states.
Jon Wain
9:55 pm on Sunday, February 26, 2012
The system as is works fine .The state does not lose money with liquor sales.The spirits are always on the shelf never out of stock, affordable and men and women have jobs there.
Albert Brooks
9:20 am on Monday, February 27, 2012
JohnRz says PA does really well considering the student population. My question would be why don't they do better then NY or California both who have far more students. That dog doesn't hunt John.
JohnRz
10:07 am on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
So if Pa kids are a bunch of drunks the obvious way to cure this is to liberalize liqour laws. I get it.
Albert Brooks
1:19 pm on Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Maybe you could try better regulation and enforcement since obviously you aren't doing a very good job now. The laws aren't being liberalized, just who owns the stores. I wouldn't call private business liberal, I'd call it American.
JohnRz
7:21 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
If we are going to only change ownership, and still have the same 620 stand alone stores with the same hours, I still take the conservative side on this and ask why risk the revenue.
Albert Brooks
7:48 am on Wednesday, February 29, 2012
We are not going to have the same 620 stores, not that you have 620 now. Depending on what proposal you read it will be 1200-1250. With added stores, added workers, added distribution, more sales due to more convenience, less border bleed, and the taxpayers not have to cover the underfunded retirement system the state will be far better off.
JohnRz
4:46 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
First you say nothing changes but the owners, now you say more stores selling more booze. What are you gonna say next?
Albert Brooks
6:32 am on Thursday, March 1, 2012
I'm gonna say you are grasping at straws now.
Jay Bahr
12:17 am on Friday, March 2, 2012
There are very few states in the union as backwards as PA on this issue – that is not an opinion that is a fact. It has nothing to do with underage drinking and everything to do with union employees and tax revenue – period!
Let’s let the government run the Pittsburgh Port Authority to see if they can do a good job and then . . . . whoops – they can’t run that one either . . . .
PA is a joke!