Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

New Contributions for Liquor Initiative

Chris Grygiel over at SeattlePI.com’s Strange Bedfellows has a big update on our scoop about Costco last week. (We had reported that the Costco was getting behind one of the two competing liquor sale privatization initiatives in Washington with a $350,000 check. Costco wrote the check to Initiative 1100, which would virtually wipe the state out of the liquor sale and distribution business.)

Grygiel reports today that two beverage and spirits distributors have now financially backed the competing initiative, I-1105, which allows the state to gather more revenue from the privatized system by making the cost of liquor licenses purchased from the state a percentage of the value of the volume of liquor sold  by a distributor or vendor.

Young’s Market Company, a Los Angeles-based spirits and wines distributor, contributed $300,000, while Odom Corp., a beverage distributor with offices in Bellevue, gave $100,000.

A somewhat crude line has been drawn between the two initiatives by their respective camps, with I-1100′s proponents arguing that the nearly-free market their initiative would create would benefit small and large companies alike, and opponents claiming it would allow large wholesalers like Costco to essentially become the new state in the market and shoulder smaller guys out.

I-1105, on the other hand, still grants the state some price control in the market, which, for smaller retailers (that can’t get same huge volume discounts as Costco), might be beneficial, supporters say.

This idea has been complicated somewhat recently because Washington Family Wineries, a collection of small wineries, is backing I-1100. They say this affirms 1100′s free-market claims, and it could make 1105′s little guy claims look ill-founded.

Supporters of I-1100 has filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office about the title and summary of I-1105, news that we broke last week. Charla Neuman, spokeswoman for I-1105 called the complaints “baloney objections,” and Grygiel reports that the conflict should be over sometime this week and I-1105 will have the green light to collect signatures.




  • http://twitter.com/LuigiGiovanni Luigi Giovanni

    Strange Bedfellows Indeed:

    Charla Neuman, liberal Democrat, spokeperson for I-1105

    Jim Odom, Susan Hutchison supporter, president of The Odom Corporation, $100,000-contributor to I-1105.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I-1100:
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washingto…

    1-1105:
    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washingto…

    1100 was advised upon by the Sound Politics guy, Stefan Sharkansky, and filed by his wife. http://www.publicola.net/2010/04/20/conservativ…

    It is more in line with Conservatives as it basically nukes the state from most things to do with liquor (including taxation). 1105 still allows the state to freely tax things, by the look of it, so is better overall for Washington. We can't afford to lose revenue right now.

    1105 is shit compared to 1100, based on further review.

  • http://twitter.com/fattailed fattailed

    What's the evidence of her “liberalism”?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    You didn't mention that Odom is a wholesale 'beverage' distributor who would be competing with Costco (who wants the opposite initiative) head to head on this, I'm guessing.

    Not everything in politics is zero-sum stuff. Both of these appeal to conservatives since it's a reduction in the size of government. The hardcore conservatives probably prefer 1100 since there's no tax provision and it's ultra-libertarian. Everyone else prefers 1105 since it's keeping needed revenue for the state, but kills the current liquore store system to let anyone sell–with some price control.

    1100= conservatives, less tax revenue, better for bigger companies.
    1105= middle ground, still keeps some tax revenue, good for everyone.

    Based on further evidence, 1100 (in spite of the sponsors/authors/ideology, which I dislike) appears to be better overall for us.

  • the side

    It is hard to conceive of liberals rallying in opposition of either of these initiatives in the likelihood they make it to the ballot. There may be opposition from people on the basis of liquor control, but not meaningful opposition from the basis of state revenue.

  • http://twitter.com/LuigiGiovanni Luigi Giovanni

    You're right. A friend of the entrenched wholesalers and enemy of the consumer, diner, club goer, small producer, etc. can't really be considered liberal in the true sense of the word.

  • http://twitter.com/LuigiGiovanni Luigi Giovanni

    I don't believe your analysis is correct. Why did the small family wineries support I-1100? While I don't much care if I-1100 is revenue neutral, I-1100 will generate much revenue for the state.

  • giffy

    I like the revenue provisions in 1105, but don't like the price controls. No reason for the state to set the price of most anything.

    There would be nothing stopping the legislature from raising taxes on alcohol to cover the deficit and that would be fine.

    I just want to be able to buy my liquor at a regular stores, like Costco, and not have to go the annoy state run ones with inconvenient hours and poor selection. Now if we could just do away with the silly rules requiring beer gardens or demanding bars stop serving at 2 we could be well on our way to a state that treats its citizens like grownups.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I think 1100's “would repeal uniform pricing” is why wineries may support it. No price controls = freer market. I'm more interested in a combination of what makes my shopping overall more convenient (either plan), which is better for my pocketbook (1100 I'd think) and which is better for the state overall (1105 I'd think due to freer taxation and regulation). Given this I think I'm more in favor of 1105 and I'm decidedly 'left'.

    Keeping all that in mind along with the fact the state stores are basically on the green mile now, I'd say both are weird bipartisan measures, but that 1100 is a bit more on the conservative side, and 1105 a bit more on the centrist/lefty side.

    But I could be wrong.

    Based on below, 1105 sounds a bit shit.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Forget Costco, I'm looking forward to independent alcohol supermarkets. I lived my entire life before moving to Seattle within 25 minutes of this place:

    http://www.amitywines.com/

    Imagine a Thriftway of nothing but alcohol. And if they didn't have it? Come back in 24 hours, and they would.

  • giffy

    Oh man… as a guy who loves a good scotch but has to settle for the half shelve the state stores have, that place looks like dream.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    The store was seriously nuts, you could find anything and everything: http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/2047

    I'd find the weirdest stuff there… Hungarian independent vintner white wines (cheap and let me tell you… $7 a bottle, and tasted better by far than some $50/bottle white I've had rare chances to taste). Beers with 14% alcohol from the Orkney Islands, crazy stuff. I can't even get something as stupid as “apple rum” (my favorite sipping drink) at the state stores.

  • http://twitter.com/LuigiGiovanni Luigi Giovanni

    publicola.net reported that the filer of I-1100 has the same last name as Sharkansky's wife (By the way, thank you publicola.net for that vital piece of information).

  • N8

    I am both against big business getting involved in our politics and against the state setting price controls to protect small businesses potential market (it's not like they're going to lose market share, cause they never had a piece of this market under the current laws).

  • n8

    That is a good point. There will be the entry of category killers in this market and Costco will end up only selling a rather small selection of the most profitable and/or private label brands.

  • http://twitter.com/LuigiGiovanni Luigi Giovanni

    Where was publicola.net's reporting on I-1105? Why the lack of curiosity about its supporters? Did you talk to Charla Neuman?

    You reported that I-1100 was flown by Stefan Sharkansky, that the filer of I-1105 had the same last name as Sharkansky's wife, that Costco had contributed $350,000 to the initiative, etc. Not much substance on the supporters of I-1105 until today.

    Forgive my cynicism, but are you expecting advertising from I-1105? Yeah, we know about that professed wall between advertising and editorial, but actions speak louder than words. Prove me wrong.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    That's why Costco is pushing this. Even if they only get .25% of the market and that's only for them +$600,000 a year in revenue, it's +$600,000 a year in revenue and this $350,000 investment pays off pretty quick. They're a sideshow to the rest.

  • Quintgab

    Actually, 1105 does NOT guarantee needed revenue for the state. 1105 gets rid of the current tax structure and mandates the LCB to recommend (only recommend) a new tax structure. It doesn't mandate the legislature to implement and given this passes session and tax increases, I'm not really sure legislators are willing to create any new taxes. Then there is $0 money for the state. Bad policy all around. People should get the facts before signing any initiative.

  • ratcityreprobate

    So what happens if both initiatives make it to the ballot and both are passed by the voters in November? Does anybody know?

  • Swita

    Luigi,

    We have an appointment with Charla on Friday. I'll be filming an interview with her. Also, we'll be talking to her about the hearing regarding I-1100's challenges to I-1105's title and short description.

    Thanks,

    Camden

  • Swita

    And we've spoken with Charla several times regarding I-1105.

  • Enoughbasta

    1100 is supported by the restaurant community, including the Seattle Nightlife and Music Association. Smaller retailers prefer 1100 as the licensing terms are more clearly defined and reasonable. The price controls aren't an issue to very many people. They know they can compete against Costco just fine without price controls on any other product. But in addition to the 6% of gross liquor sales for the first 5 years. (try explaining to a small business owner how it helps her) , 1105 directs the board to determine additional licensing fees and criteria for being eligible to get a license. That's horribly uncertain. A lot of small business owners without enough clout to lobby the liquor board will lose.

    The one liberal argument in favor of 1105 is the hope for more tax revenue. But as someone mentioned above, that's a sham. It repeals the existing tax, replacing it only with a recommendation to the legislature. What the legislature does with the recommendation is anybody's guess.

    1100 leaves the existing tax alone and does not in any way preclude the legislature from adjusting the tax. From that perspective, it doesn't change the existing system.

    Overall, 1100 is betters for consumers, and better for businesses of all sizes — including small businesses, who don't have the available cash for campaign contributions that Costco does.

    1105 is a terrible deal for everybody except distributors who want the liquor board to continue to use its finite resources to protect the distributors' inflated monopoly prices.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Free Booze Now!

    I would prefer that it was revenue neutral.

  • Fremont Pete

    1100 is supported by the Washington State Restaurant Association and the Seattle Nightlife & Music Association which as an industry is the largest private employer in the state. 1105 will end up costing the consumer more and is only supported by the distributors. It is not good for everyone at all.
    Yes! 1100
    No! 1105

  • enoughbasta

    Are you filming an interview with anybody who supports I-1100?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    The media should correctly frame these things and not be afraid to call a spade a spade, so that understanding of these things is easier. Thank you for clearing this up.

  • Arttheshark

    The State will not lose the tax money, but will lose the mark-up which is more than the tax. When the spokesperson for 1100 was asked, she suggested the State “raise the taxes”. So if the State does so to recoup losses of revenue and the retailers have to make a profit, exactly how does the price go down? It doesn't. One thing for sure, the State WILL raise taxes some where! Oh, and by the way, it just so happens that the same group that's promoting 1100 are also promoting the State income tax initiative. Hmmm.

  • Easy_Money

    I will ask Ratcityreprobate's question again: what happens if both 1100 and 1105 pass in November? How are the conflicting sections reconciled? And would someone please spell out the differences between the two? Is it just that 1100 dictates a flat rate for a selling license and 1105 levies a percentage? Do both allow direct sales from the distiller to the business (Costco, Safeway, etc.) or does 1105 dictate the distiller must sell to distributors (Odom corp) only?