A sign promoting the New York State of Wine campaign is displayed at the Market 32 location in Clifton Park.
Will Waldron/Times Union
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
That quote from economist Thomas Sowell is a maxim worth remembering, particularly when someone tries to convince you that a big change will bring huge pluses without minuses. The real world rarely works that way.
Article continues below this ad
Which brings me to a recent, supposedly independent report released by New York State of Wine, the coalition hoping to legalize the sale of wine in grocery stores. It claims that the change will bring significant benefits but few negative consequences — no trade-offs, in other words.
As our Steve Barnes reported, the FTI Consulting report claims that allowing supermarket wine sales would generate $42 million more in annual state and local tax revenue, among other wonderful economic boons, while having only a “minimal impact” on small liquor stores often located close to said supermarkets.
I call baloney. Here in the real world, we know there is only so much available money, so we can predict that a dollar spent in Location X is money not spent in Location Y. To put it another way, shoppers who buy a bottle of merlot with their asparagus and Fruit Loops will not, in most cases, walk across the plaza to buy more wine at Momma’s Liquors. Convenience has saved them the trip.
Make the Times Union a Preferred Source on Google to see more of our journalism when you search.
Add Preferred Source
The report tacitly admits this with the data it cites. It notes, for example, that the number of liquor stores in Tennessee decreased by about 22% after that state allowed wine to be sold in grocery stores.
Article continues below this ad
That’s not a “minimal impact.” That’s a bloodbath.
If nearly a quarter of all liquor stores closed, you can be sure that another quarter, at least, are barely hanging on and that the majority have had their revenue walloped. But that shouldn’t surprise. It’s basic common sense, an acknowledgement of economics. The same dollar can’t be spent in two places.
And if we’re going to assert, as the report also does, that the change will induce people to buy and drink more wine, then, well, there are reasons to be dubious of the claim and wary of consequences if it’s true.
I ask: Is more alcohol consumption an unqualified good for families, public health, road safety, etc.? Err, probably not. Trade-offs, people. Trade-offs.
Article continues below this ad
Attempting to make its case, the report also says the number of liquor stores in Pennsylvania didn’t change after wine was allowed in grocery stores, while the number in Colorado decreased by about 3%. Both statistics are misleading, though, given that differences in state liquor laws mean comparisons are rarely apples-to-apples.
Liquor stores in Pennsylvania are owned by the state, so they operate under different economic circumstances than the private liquor stores here in New York. The Colorado total, meanwhile, seems to be derived from the number of liquor-store licenses — an irrelevant count, advocates for the stores say, as those licenses can be held for years after a business has shuttered.
News reports in Colorado indicate that many small liquor stores are struggling, so much so that state lawmakers have moved to pass new protections for them. “With the addition of wine to grocery stores, we’ve seen small liquor stores, small businesses in communities across Colorado, take an enormous hit,” a Colorado state senator told Sky-Hi News.
Again, that shouldn’t surprise. That’s what anyone should expect.
Article continues below this ad
Oh, but the FTI analysis tells us with confidence that a bill legalizing wine in New York grocery stores will “support approximately 1,988 jobs,” which is typical of the silly claims that make these sorts of reports not worth the cost of paper.
First, if you’ll allow me to nitpick, why pair the word “approximately” with such a specific number? Second, what does “support” mean? Not much, really, and it avoids the question of how many jobs might be lost.
None of this is to discount the potential benefits of allowing supermarket wine sales, including, of course, convenience. Sure, it’s a hassle to schlep from the supermarket to a liquor store when you’re exhausted after work, which helps to explain why polls say most New Yorkers support changing the law.
Why protect liquor stores when we didn’t protect, say, butchers? Bring on the progress, embrace the modern world, yada yada.
Article continues below this ad
But if we’re going to join the 39 states that allow supermarkets to sell wine, we should be mature and honest about the trade-offs and what we’re choosing. We should acknowledge the risks and likely consequences, and we shouldn’t let advocates convince us that we can have it all — a common tactic whenever big legislative changes are proposed.
And if we do let New York grocery stores sell wine, we should also let them sell a wide range of marijuana products. That would have just a “minimal impact” on the state’s new network of small cannabis retailers. Right?