Here’s what Ballot Question 3 implies for liquor stores.
Table of Contents
- Here’s what Ballot Question 3 implies for liquor stores.
- Each restriction has one thing in common
- Question 3
- Licenses for food stores
Liquor licences are the focus of Question 3. On Nov. 8, Massachusetts voters will be asked to expand the number of liquor licences a business can have from nine to 18, limit self-checkout for alcohol sales, and change the fine system to cover all sales, not just alcohol.
Each restriction has one thing in common
They would largely effect big box retailers rather than your neighbourhood package store, according to Rob Mellion, executive director of the Massachusetts Package Store Association.
“It’s only a Walmart or big box store that wants self-checkout of alcohol,” he said. “Nobody else does.”
Mellion, who co-wrote the ballot issue for his organisation, which represents locally owned and independent liquor stores, was attempting to pacify huge chain stores, which he claims are not talking with the association.
“We reached out in compromise with our ballot question, (and) we give up on licenses in return for a coexistence with these large super chains that are working to put us all out of business,” Mellion said. “They just want to wipe the party membership off the face of the earth. Our only means was to go to the people.”
In Massachusetts’ three-tiered system, shops can currently have up to nine liquor licences, and cities and localities can choose to award additional licences for all alcohol or just beer and wine.
Question 3
Question 3, which would allow stores with nine total alcohol beverage licences to keep them, seeks to reduce the number to seven. Mellion’s concession to chains such as Cumberland Farms and Total Wine & More is to allow up to 18 liquor licences, seven of which will be full liquor licences and the remainder will only be for beer and wine.
According to the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, supporters of the question receive far more financial support than opponents. As of Oct. 21, the Massachusetts Package Store Association and additional private donations, largely from package store owners, had raised approximately $900,000 for the cause.
While the OCPF has reported a total of $12.50 raised for the opposition, Massachusetts Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, operated by the national company Total Wines LLC, has spent little less than $3 million on independent ballot question media, freebies, and TV production.
Total Wine & More, a liquor store with 240 stores in 27 states, including Massachusetts, but none in The Sun Chronicle’s coverage area, did not reply to a request for comment. Total Wine Vice President Edward Cooper, in an email to The Boston Globe, accused Question 3 supporters of attempting to suppress competition.
Meghan Cimini-Jones, a board member of the package store association and one of the owners of her family’s business, Yankee Spirits, based in Sturbridge with additional locations in Attleboro, Norwood, and Swansea, recognises Total Wine & More as a family business with approximately $3 billion in revenue.
“It protects us from namely Total Wine and big box retailers that are looking for ancillary business at the expense of us, and it disrupts the liquor industry and as a whole,” she said of the motivation behind the question.
According to the Boston Globe, Total Wine’s opposition commercials allege that the ballot issue “reduces alcohol licences for family held businesses,” which are headed by brothers David and Robert Trone.
David Trone, whose name appears on millions of dollars spent on Question 3 opposition media, is a Democratic congressman from Maryland who conducted a campaign with $17.4 million of his own money.
Cimini-
According to Jones, the current restrictions and proposed revisions are intended to improve public safety while simultaneously protecting the market. Relaxing licence caps for stores that don’t sell alcohol, she claims, puts “little enterprises like my family business in peril.”
“If you just increase licenses and increase licenses and increase licenses, you’re just cutting the pie more ways,” she said. “There’s not going to be more people consuming alcohol, it’s just going to be putting more people out of business.”
Licenses for food stores
Question 3 is a 2020 attempt by retail behemoth Cumberland Farms to get their own question on the ballot, one that would remove the cap on beer and wine licences in Massachusetts. The question did not receive enough support to be placed on the ballot, but Cumberland Farms stated in a statement that their focus remains on a new framework.
“As a result, the destiny of Question 3 is irrelevant to us,” the statement read. “Whether it passes or fails, local governments will continue to be constrained by prohibition-era laws that preclude the vast majority of our Massachusetts retailers from selling beer and wine.”
Cumberland Farms lobbied alongside Walmart and Amazon for legislation to create a new form of licence known as a food shop licence. This would circumvent the cap and allow major shops to sell beer and wine without restriction.
The bill was referred to a study committee, thereby putting an end to it for the session.
Cumberland Farms stated that the caps are antiquated, and that altering Massachusetts’ three-tier structure is their top goal in the upcoming legislative session.
“Other states have done it well, and Massachusetts consumers overwhelmingly support it,” they wrote. “Unfortunately, Question 3 simply doesn’t address it.”
Cumberland Farms may be concentrating their efforts in the House, but Mellion hopes that Question 3 will deter other box businesses and initiatives that may get support in the Legislature.
“With the threat of Cumberland Farms doing another ballot question attempt, along with the 168 bills that were filed this legislative session,” Mellion said, “one way or another we were going to be facing the potential of expanded licenses.”