In a monumental effort to bring together collaborative and opposing forces in Colorado’s convoluted liquor industry, state lawmakers earlier this month ignored one important group in creating Senate Bill 197: voters.
Props to state Sen. Pat Steadman, who attempted to navigate a compromise between owners of liquor and grocery stores in allowing the later to sell wine and full-strength beer.
We pushed early on and frequently for a compromise that would preclude the need for grocery stores to go to the statewide ballot box to make changes that have been years coming.
Critics of grocery store sales say it would bankrupt just about every small and medium liquor store in the state and hurt Colorado’s phenomenal craft beer industry.
Proponents say that it’s what consumers want, and that liquor stores can retain customers by offering a different kind of convenience and by doing more than just stocking shelves.
So amid a cacophony of interests, lobbyists and opinions, Steadman steered SB 197 to the photo-finish line, and it’s waiting for action on Gov. John Hickenlooper’s desk.
He should undoubtedly veto the bill.
First off, this convoluted and almost impossible-to-understand schedule of liquor-license buyouts and an unheard of 20-year phase-in isn’t a compromise — it’s government-sponsored collusion among retail interests. While the bill attempts to map out a future of where some grocery store customers can buy wine and beer in some locations, it does so without allowing for future grocery store, beer, wine and liquor industry changes. It would be hard to have foreseen 20 years ago how super-retailers like Walmart and Target could have so widely affected the grocery industry. Who knows what’s around the corner or down the road, but this bill doesn’t allow for inevitable change.
Most importantly, the bill usurps the will of the voters that this should be accommodating. People want the state to allow their grocery store to sell real beer and wine now, not in 20 years. This measure not only doesn’t really make nearby convenient sales a reality, it has language that supersedes the will of voters if grocery stores go to the ballot box anyway, which it appears that they will.
We envisioned a compromise that might roll out new licenses on a lottery over a couple of years, and allow liquor stores tax incentives, to create chains and have the ability to sell food, but never this.
Hickenlooper should veto this bill. If he calls a special session to address the state’s hospital provider fee disaster, as we’ve also suggested, lawmakers could have another go at this.
But realistically, it appears that grocers can and should put their measure on the ballot, and state lawmakers can work after the fact on ways to help keep the state’s independent liquor store industry alive.