Obsessed with privatization I
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, July 5, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Seems the Trib is hellbent on pushing liquor privatization. Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan, writers of the column “The truth about liquor control” (June 28 and TribLIVE.com), do not have a clue about the subject. The only people hurt will be the unionized state-store workers? Hardly — they will be shuffled around to other state jobs.
So, who else will be hurt? The 85 percent to 90 percent of “D”-license beer distributors who don't have the space to expand to the 5,000 to 7,000 square feet that would be required for them to sell wine and spirits, nor the capital for license fees. Sure, the state will loan them the money, but they still will have to pay it back from their sales — an added expense. They will eventually have to compete with Wal-Mart and large pharmacies, grocery stores and out-of-state liquor warehouses just waiting to move in.
The next time the Trib interviews a “D” distributor, don't pick from the 10 percent to 15 percent that have the capital and the space; ask a small distributor. Also, if you think prices will go down, think again.
Ask pharmacies and big-box stores to get in a certain microbrew or import. After they stop laughing, think about the local distributor out of business, who would have tried to get that brew for you.
There is a solution, but it is not throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks. Privatization is not easy; it will take more thought than Gov. Corbett has given it. And if you include beer in the equation, I have a better solution that does not destroy family businesses and jobs.
The writer owns Bargain Beer N Pop in Johnstown.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Slots & property taxes
- Medicaid’s future
- Harmar needs better enforcement
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Proven success
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Good use of slots money
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Conspicuous by absence