The license fee is miniscule in comparison to liquor store profits

As an economist, the fact that such profits exist suggests that there are too liquor stores.

by MPC on Jul 10, 2009 12:05 pm • link • report

Have single sales of alcohol bans been extended to Wards 7 and 8? I know ward 6 has one, but I hear it may be also easy for the store to be exempted. Singles sales have a place, its called a bar.

by Erik on Jul 10, 2009 12:20 pm • link • report

Exactly the same thing is happening on Sherman Avenue. Admittedly that's not the same sort of ubiquity over range you get East of the River, but it's a similar per-capita threshold.

I am absolutely tired of businesses like grocers and delis getting priced out of every storefront so that the third liquor store in a two-block area can open up. People need things other than alcohol!

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 10, 2009 12:35 pm • link • report

MPC - did you mean to say "too few"? Does the fact that some crack and gun dealers are able to turn sizable profits suggest that the communities in which they do so lack the requisite crack and guns they need to function as a community? Why even bother applying that economic model when the result it suggests so obviously defies all logic? Liquor stores can turn a profit, sure, but no one needs liquor to live. If the liquor stores are bringing blight to an area, shops selling food, clothing, housewares and other necessities are going to be a lot less likely to operate there, and the community's economic vitality depends in part on the liquor stores cleaning up their act or packing their bags.

by Lucre on Jul 10, 2009 12:41 pm • link • report

@Eric:
The single bottle ban is bad for stores like Whole Foods, D'Vines, etc that sell 750 mL imported bottles of Belgian and other beers. There definitely should be some exemption protocols.

by Nate on Jul 10, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report

it is a sad fact that because of the proliferation of these liquor stores in the 1960's, 70's and 80's, many NIMBYs saw the fact that there were small stores as the problem- so that when a store with an apartment over top of it was sold and rehabbed- the owners were encouraged to drop the store part and turn the entire edifice into a residence- thus reducing the potential for more retail other than liquor stores and forcing nearby residents to get into their cars to drive out of the city to Virginia to shop for little things. Proliferation of these liquor stores should NEVER become an excuse to try to get rid of small businesses or to make every block purely residential -
as has been done on Capitol Hill,
which at one time had Mom & Pop stores on every block that have since been "renovated" out of existence .
Destroying the urban fabric is not the answer.... bringing new businesses and more of a range of businesses should be the goal.
I will NEVER believe the idea that mom & pop stores are some kind of relic of the past and that they cannot make a comeback- when I see excellent mom & pop stores - the ones that are still there- doing an excellent business and contributing to the neighborhood.

by w on Jul 10, 2009 1:10 pm • link • report

sadly this isn't a new issue. For some reason, this Post article isn't easily available online, but it is a discussion of the same issue: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-287402.html

There is also my testimony to City Council from 2002 embedded in this blog entry: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2005/04/local-involvement-is-so-much-fun.html

Good luck. I highly recommend DiIlulio's book and some of the papers by Dennis Gorman and Richard Scribner.

by Richard Layman on Jul 10, 2009 2:14 pm • link • report

There should be a law that bans the outrageous practice of liquor store owners who force local residents to buy their alcohol, congregate outside their storefronts, urinate in public, and generally behave as nuisances.

I can't believe how we allow liquor store owners - many of whom don't even live in the area, but just pay all the various DC taxes (property, corporate, sales, income, cigarette) - to get away with forcing residents to buy their products.

It's an outrage!

by Fritz on Jul 10, 2009 2:26 pm • link • report

Better irony, please.

At least in some parts of Capitol Hill, the folks getting drunk and pissing aren't even necessarily residents...

by ibc on Jul 10, 2009 2:33 pm • link • report

The assorted drunks and seediness that congregate around liquor stores are indeed aggravating. But I think that you're mistaking a symptom of social decay for its cause.

The problem is that in these areas there is a great demand for cheap alcohol. And the drugs and guns analogy actually does apply. Outlawing them has not made them any less prevalent in poor east of the river areas.

Also, I'm not sure that liquor stores make the outrageous profits that you think. After all, many of them ARE mom and pops. That means higher wholesale prices and lower sales volumes, thus the annoyingly high prices for stale potato chips. My impression is that the only way they make enough to do reasonably well is by employing family labor and working long, long hours.

Finally, I have trouble with you calling these shop keepers "parasites". They sell what people buy. Want more evidence? Look at markets in gentrifying areas. My local liquor stores sell Hagen-Daz, frozen Indian food, soy milk and kimchi. OK, so I can't quite explain the kimchi. Maybe its more popular than I thought...

by Daniel on Jul 10, 2009 3:39 pm • link • report

Fritz: Because this discussion is totally about whether or not people are forced to buy liquor and not about whether these voluntary transactions are worsening a downward spiral in already blighted neighborhoods. Right.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 10, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report

So rather than treat the problem of alcoholism, the author of the OP would rather the liquor stores be shut down in HER neighborhood and the alcoholic bums go somewhere else.

Geez, Capital Heights IS on the rise...it's modeling the approach of other upper-crust neighborhoods.

BTW - River East? Is that courtesy of the same people who brought us 'NoMa' and 'Penn Quarter'? Lipstick on a swine?

by MPC on Jul 10, 2009 3:59 pm • link • report

I've heard River East used for quite a while. Likening the area to "swine" completely unnecessary.

by Daniel on Jul 10, 2009 4:11 pm • link • report

I thought River East was the Benning Road kind of area? Can anyone give me a general area?

by цarьchitect on Jul 10, 2009 4:22 pm • link • report

I've heard River East used for quite a while. Likening the area to "swine" completely unnecessary.

You don't think his statement was designed precisely to evoke that kind of reaction? MPC is more like a wrestling heel than, say, Jason Fortuny or the 4-chan variety of Internet troll, but....

MPC, on the off chance you're being serious, explain why you of all people think it's better from an economic or utilitarian perspective to have taxpayers pay for drug rehab rather than regulate the locations and licenses of liquor stores.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 10, 2009 5:35 pm • link • report

Tsar: "East of the River" can refer to anywhere east of the Anacostia in Wards 7 or 8.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 10, 2009 5:36 pm • link • report

River East is the re-branding of East of the River. East of the River has an "other side of the tracks" vibe to it and there's a hidden freshness over here that we're trying to unveil.

River East = the area of the city on the "other" side of the Anacostia River. Also sometimes called Ward 15 (Wards 7+8)

by DG-rad on Jul 10, 2009 5:50 pm • link • report

I'll take that one. Because I don't think restricting liquor stores will reduce alcoholism. The only real benefit is moving alcoholics/drinking away from the area around the store. Maybe that's enough, but either way the social costs of alcohol consumption still exist.

And considering that there are many empty store fronts(at least in the ares that I've seen) I don't think you can assume that removing liquor stores will bring back other kinds of retail.

by Daniel on Jul 10, 2009 5:51 pm • link • report

I sympathize with the concern, but I don't see the point in attacking liquor stores. People across America drink; not all of them are nuisances. More alternatives to drinking on the street are needed -- like other affordable leisure activities, and housing, so people can drink in their home -- as is better enforcement and treatment/support options for people with problems.

If the issue is the concentration of liquor stores, then maybe DC should adjust the number of liquor licenses available and the locations/concentrations. Maybe other modifications are in order (e.g. specifics of what can be sold, when, tax rates/license fees, etc.). A broad attack on liquor stores isn't the best way to manage the problem and does collateral damage to responsible drinkers.

This post is more hyperbolic complaining than thoughtful critique. The attack on store owners, in particular, is practically racist...

by Sue Donymus on Jul 10, 2009 6:04 pm • link • report

As the writer of this article "Thank You". Even if you don't agree with my points I appreciate that today someone hopefully heard a River East perspective, discovered that those of us that live "over the river" don't exactly live "past hope" and that we are educated, concerned and committed. If someone finally picked up the term "River East" and that there is a neighborhood over here called CONGRESS HEIGHTS (not Capital Heights) that is an added bonus.

I hope someone heard that we are working hard to bring POSITIVE attention to the great things we have in our communities and find solutions for it's challenges.

There is much more to Ward 8 than what is highlighted on the evening news or the shenanigans of Marion Barry (btw not everyone in Ward 8 supports him blindly). We are real people with real families and real homes and we want to live in safe, clean and family friendly neighborhoods.

I invite anyone who wants to learn more about River East or Congress Heights to please visit my blog, Congress Heights on the Rise.

Thanks!

by The Advoc8te on Jul 10, 2009 6:46 pm • link • report

MPC, on the off chance you're being serious, explain why you of all people think it's better from an economic or utilitarian perspective to have taxpayers pay for drug rehab rather than regulate the locations and licenses of liquor stores.

For one it's paternalism at it's worst, the logic of it being:

"Once those negroes drink some Thunderbird, they just can't stop. Thank god us white people can look out for them."

Second of all, there is a correlation between the amount of liquor stores and alcoholism? Good thing nobody drank alcohol during Prohibition, otherwise it would sorta nullify your argument.

Third of all, it's discriminatory. Why wouldn't rich white neighborhoods be as restricted in their liquor license quotas than poor black ones? Maybe you prefer socioeconomic discrimination, but I'm not that big of a fan of it.

Fourth of all, bailing out worthless drunks is as useful as bailing out worthless corporations. They're both deadweight on society.

by MPC on Jul 10, 2009 8:24 pm • link • report

The numerous liquor stores are "blighted yet busy". That they're "busy" says that the problem is not the stores, which do not create alcohol abuse, but the patrons. The gentrifying portions of Ward One have been down this road, shutting down liquor stores (and enforcing single sales) in the hopes that that will somehow solve the problem-drinker problem. It doesn't, obviously; it merely pushes that population into somebody else's neighborhood. Our "gentry" are content with that outcome.

by Jack on Jul 11, 2009 8:40 am • link • report

Thank you, Fritz. To build on that point, there's a whole lot of hyperbole in this article, but not much more. "Irresponsible liquor store owners?" How are they irresponsible? Because they run a business that turns a profit, and the people who consume their products act in a manner that is unacceptable to the author? Liquor stores "exploit those at their weakest and most desperate?" Please. If this is an example of a "rising star," as David put it, the River East area still has a ways to go.

by dcd on Jul 11, 2009 10:36 am • link • report

@dcd, MPC and Fritz
Thank you for demonstrating so perfectly exactly how an environment could be created that would spawn the likes of a master con artist like Marion Barry. Every single time Barry runs afoul of the law there is this huge outcry from outraged district residents and the nation about how Ward 8 can continue to reelect Barry back into office year after year despite his laundry list of crimes. Look to your comments - thereÂ’s your answer.
Pardon me while I go slightly off track to illustrate a point.
Barry’s “key to success” is a very simple yet highly effective one. He preys so skillfully on the average Ward 8 residents fear that Barry and Barry alone cares about the Ward 8 residents concerns and needs. For unlike those smug armchair experts who issue scathing judgments on what is hyperbole while perched atop their towering pedestals parked in front of tiny laptops, sipping iced vanilla lattes Barry at least fakes like he gives a damn. Say what you want about Barry but he doesn’t openly mock his Ward 8 brethren, or make them feel small or ridicule them for wanting to live in a safe, clean and enjoyable environment. He doesn't assume just because they are from River East that they are in some way less deserving of the basic respect and consideration you would give another human being -never underestimate the power of basic human kindness.
I am not sure how much pride you take in tearing down what is already so insignificant, after all I only live in River East – Ward 8 to be exact (no point putting lipstick on a pig right?) but perhaps instead of hurling insults or passing judgments on a community you so clearly know so very little about you could take a moment to avoid self aggrandizing and condescending statements and pose a legitimate question. Better still, volunteer to come over to Ward 8 and actually familiarize yourself with the area and its residents – be willing to put your fanny where your mouse is.
IF you asked I would have been more than happy to give you some factual examples of how the liquor stores in my community (specifically Mart Liquors) “exploit those at their weakest and most desperate”.
Then again if you actually posed a legitimate question my response may have required you to think out of the box without constantly trying to place myself and every other Ward 8 resident in it.
P.S. @dcd – We agree on one thing I’m no “rising star” I’m a sun – please try not to get burned.
Good Day-
Nikki Peele
Proud Ward 8 and River East Resident

by The Advoc8te on Jul 11, 2009 11:50 am • link • report

I do not like alcoholism, and even as a college student in DC, I've never had a drink. But I have to side with MPC on this one. These stores aren't being propped up by government subsidies (heck, governments take many actions to discourage them, even if they may seem small or ineffective), they're not artificially creating a market. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of telling people they can't buy something they want.

As MPC and Jack noted, Liquor stores don't spontaneously create alcohol abusers. They fill a market. As Daniel noted, this is treating a symptom of blight, not the cause.

I also honestly think MPC's hitting on something important in the idea that people are dictating to others what they should and should not purchase. I'm all for programs that help people escape alcohol abuse who want to. But I'm uncomfortable with not allowing people to purchase something they genuinely desire. DC already has the alcoholic beverages tax, and I guess I'm okay with raising that until it pays for the cost of the negative externality of substance abuse programs (if it doesn't already), but aside from compensating for the costs of alcoholism (which the store isn't responsible for any more than phone manufacturers are responsible for telemarketers anyway), I don't see why a liquor store should be treated differently from any other store.

by Doug on Jul 11, 2009 12:02 pm • link • report

Whoa! Nikki, that last post (11:50am) was aggressive far beyond any words MPC, fritz, or dcd said.

In any case, I would be interested in hearing how these stores exploit those at their weakest and most vulnerable, so consider this a genuine request to the offer extended in your last post. I've been under the impression these stores simply offered and sold a product. If they're doing more, then you may be right, there's something we're not seeing. (Although I suspect my answer will be to stop the exploitation, not shut down the store).

by Doug on Jul 11, 2009 12:10 pm • link • report

@ The Advocate

Welcome to the internet; if you want a friend, get a dog. (Trouble is, on the internet, no one even knows who the dogs are.) If you're going to post on a forum, except the gamut of responses.

I stopped reading your latest response once you made myself the subject rather than the issues themselves. I, myself, am irrelevant because I'm not the only one who harbors these views. Attack my opinions, not myself.

But word for the wise. If you're going to stick your neck out on a public forum about public policy issues, expect public feedback. Just because people hold views that you find repugnant/disgusting/counterproductive doesn't mean that they aren't out there and part of the discourse.

by MPC on Jul 11, 2009 12:15 pm • link • report

Thank you Nikki, you are one of the rising stars of DC.

The only thing the DC "Mom and Pop" carries that the larger market doesn't is often crack pipes, Chore Boy, tiny baggies, and high-octance small bottles of wine and malts that prey on the least fortunate. The little food on their shelves is usually outdated and mostly for appearance. Their business association is the most powerful and corrupting in DC even though I doubt if any of their owners live in DC. And these outsiders don't understand why we Washingtonians don't have a nostalgia for them.

More markets are needed and the beer and wine sections now in our bigger markets often provide their profit margin. The bigger markets are also much more responsible in not selling items that prey on the addicted and disrupt neighborhoods.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 11, 2009 12:32 pm • link • report

Nikki, I agree, it has to be the community of River East along with our leaders to get involved and demand change.

by Darrin D. Davis on Jul 11, 2009 2:43 pm • link • report

Why not call all areas with DC by what the neighborhood is called, instead of making up names to cover wide areas.

If you don't know it ask someone and find it out or call it by the streets surrounding it.

If you call wards 7 and 8 River East than the other side should be called River West.

There should be a variety of stores through out DC which isn't the case at all.

In many areas there are no stores or even government services (DMV, Social Services, Employment services etc) you can look on any map of DC and see that most DC city services and there buildings are all in one general area which does not provide choice for citizens

by Kk on Jul 11, 2009 5:15 pm • link • report

I agree with others who say that liquor stores themselves are not the problem. As people have already mentioned, there is demand for the products, the store owners are paying taxes on their profits, paying a landlord or property taxes to occupy their space, paying the city for their business license permit, and customers are paying consumption taxes. I fail to see how this is in an of itself a bad thing, or how closing some liquor stores will help curb public drunkenness. If there is demand at the current market price points, that demand will simply venture to the next nearest liquor store.

Everyone here seems to want there to be less alcohol consumption, less public drunkenness, and less of the societal effects each cause. There is certainly nothing wrong with this desire, and we already have mechanisms in place to modify people's behavior to match it. I think the central issue here (and one that Nikki mentioned briefly in her original article and a latter comment), is price, the price the stores must pay to do business and the price customers must pay to purchase alcohol.

If you want less liquor stores and less consumption of alcohol, either raise the business license fee (or tack on an additional yearly fee) or raise the tax on alcohol sales, or both. The only way to have any significant impact on people's consumption of alcohol is to raise the price they have to pay for it. Raising the business license tax will force all liquor store owners to charge more for their products, and this will necessarily reduce demand. As people have mentioned, alcohol is not a necessary consumer good, but people like to drink, and they will buy alcohol whether there is 1 liquor store on near their residence or 10. If the price of alcohol goes up, they will still buy it, but they will buy less.

by Isotopor on Jul 13, 2009 11:58 am • link • report

Isotopor- I assume you're volunteering your neighborhood as the "next closest one" where Thunderbird and MD-40 can be purchased. Thank you and good luck with that.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 13, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report

Rather than doing a point-by-point dissection of the dozen or so things hideously wrong with this post, I'll just give you one image, about the premise:

by Squalish on Jul 14, 2009 6:30 am • link • report

Squalish: that's especially fantastic given all the folderol about "YOU want to BAN LIQUOR STORES like in ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS?"

Except, you know, that with a few noisy exceptions, most of the liquor stores are in, well, the nice neighborhoods, the principal difference being that liquor stores in nice neighborhoods are also mostly nice.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 14, 2009 9:28 am • link • report

On the other hand:

Looks like a liquor store on every other corner to me.

by Daniel M. Laenker on Jul 14, 2009 9:30 am • link • report

Unless the cancer is terminal, it can be eradicated with time and effective treatment. I used to go around to ANC meetings, as part of a former job; I had to beg to get 5 minutes to talk about a program to educate people about DC's lead poisoning issues...because most of the agendas were consumed with liquor license applications and renewals. So, it's not just an issue in Wards 7 and 8.

That said, let's consider WHY so many liquor stores have enough demand that they can remain in business...for decades. Yes, people...decades. Poverty and unemployment lead to despair; drug and alcohol abuse are the most common forms of self-medication for those who have no health insurance...and would refuse mental health services (if given access) anyway, because of the societal stigma. In short, everybody that needs to be certified hasn't always been on the right side of St. Elizabeth's gate.

If the root issues of poverty are addressed...you might actually see the liquor store owners fall off like natural selection. The liquor store owners will leave when there is no viable market.

So, people, stop quibbling over liquor licenses and take on a real challenge. 1.) Assess the needs of your community. 2.) Persuade residents, who possess the requisite talents, to address those needs--and make legal profits without exploiting other people's weaknesses. [How many people are doing hair, babysitting, crafting clothing or jewelry, building recording studios, or finding other creative means to produce income in their homes...without a business license or home occupancy permit?] 3.) Remind "upwardly mobile" residents that every neighbor deserves a decent, quality of life, regardless of property values.

Give people a legitimate means to LIFT THEMSELVES out of the poverty cycle. Those that want it will use the leverage to thrive. Those that don't will get choked out like weeds without nourishment. Adapt and evolve...or stagnate and join the ranks of the extinct.

by Anita on Jul 20, 2010 9:56 am • link • report