Media Reaction To SF Mayor’s Veto Of Alcohol Tax

September 22, 2010 By Jay Brooks

san-francisco
As I reported yesterday, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom kept his promise to veto the proposed ordinance that seeks to add an additional tax on alcohol sold in the city.

Here’s mayor Newsom’s veto letter that he sent to city supervisors:

This letter communicates my veto of the ordinance pending in File Number 100865, finally passed by the Board of Supervisors today, September 21, 2010. This ordinance proposes an Alcohol Mitigation Fee to be imposed on alcoholic beverage wholesalers and others who sell or distribute alcoholic beverages in San Francisco.
I cannot support this unnecessary and harmful new fee that will hurt our City’s economy and cost us jobs at a time when we most need them.
In this economy, I fundamentally believe that we need to be encouraging local businesses – large and small – to continue to work and operate in our neighborhoods, to continue to provide jobs and security to the residents of San Francisco, and to continue to support our City’s economy in its recovery. It is in these times of struggle that we need to stimulate our local economy – not pursue policies that will stifle growth and put our county at a competitive disadvantage with every other county in California.
In addition, while we have faced significant budget deficits for the last three years, we consistently have supported the provision of critical health care services to our residents most in need – at a much higher rate than surrounding counties. And, we will continue to do so. Therefore, I do not accept the premise that, but for this fee, we will be slashing our health care programs.
I also strongly believe that we are in questionable legal territory due to state preemption issues, and that passing this ordinance would risk millions of dollars in attorney’s fees that we can ill afford. I prefer to hold those battles for creative policy areas where we believe we are in strong legal standing.
I remain committed to working with the Board of Supervisors and City departments to continue to identify impactful programs to help chronic inebriates in San Francisco. However, I do not believe that an alcohol impact fee is the best approach in achieving that policy goal. Our best hope for continued strong financial standing of this City and support for public health services is to help our local economy grow and thrive.

The media reaction has been swift and voluminous. At least twenty media outlets throughout the state have weighed in since yesterday afternoon. Here’s what the San Francisco Chronicle, by John Coté, had to say:

Newsom contends the fee would hurt jobs and is illegal, treading on the state’s authority to regulate alcohol.
“You don’t help the city’s general fund by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit we’re going to lose,” Newsom said.
Other opponents, such as the San Francisco , argue the fee is really a tax and thus needs voter approval. The city attorney issued a confidential opinion to supervisors that warned of potentially significant legal risks associated with the legislation on both fronts. Liquor industry representatives vowed to sue if the legislation were enacted.

And I love this gem. “Avalos said there was simply ‘no evidence’ that consumers would face inflated costs.” Puh-leeze. His insistence that there would be no mark-up on the tax from wholesaler to retailer to consumer is completely naive and disingenuous. Everyone in the business community is telling him the tax will be marked up, but that’s not “evidence.” Does he think they’re all lying just because they don’t like the tax? Has he never worked in any business capacity? That’s what businesses do, they mark up their costs and pass them along to consumers. Not doing so is how you go out of business.

This Year’s Jeremiah O’Brien Festival

September 21, 2010 By Jay Brooks

sf-brewers-guild
Trying to catch up after being gone a week at GABF, the week before I attended the annual Brews on the Bay beer festival put on by the San Francisco Brewers Guild. It’s such a unique, fun event in such a great setting that I really enjoy it going each year.

The beer festival aboard the SS Jeremiah O'Brien
The Brews on the Bay beer festival aboard the SS Jeremiah O’Brien.

Shaun O'Sullivan, from 21st Amendment, and Brendan Dobel, Thirsty Bear
Shaun O’Sullivan, from 21st Amendment, and Brendan Dobel, brewer at Thirsty Bear.

Rich Higgins, me and Hop-Meisters hop farmer Marty Kuchinski
Rich Higgins, from Social Kitchen, me and Hop-Meisters hop farmer Marty Kuchinski.

Below is a slideshow of this year’s Brews on the Bay beer festival. This Flickr gallery is best viewed in full screen. To view it that way, after clicking on the arrow in the center to start the slideshow, click on the button on the bottom right with the four arrows pointing outward on it, to see the photos in glorious full screen. Once in full screen slideshow mode, click on “Show Info” to identify each photo.

Mayor Newsom Vetoes SF Alcohol Tax

September 21, 2010 By Jay Brooks

san-francisco
Last week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed, 7-3, the proposed alcohol tax sponsored by John Avalos, urged on by the Marin Institute, who gave him the idea in the first place. Today, as promised, mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed the ordinance.

According to a press release from the California Alliance for Hospitality Jobs, “San Francisco small business owners and employees in the hospitality industry breathed a sigh of relief after learning that Mayor Gavin Newsom followed through on his promise to veto Supervisor John Avalos’ job-killing alcohol ‘mitigation fee.'” I wish I could be so optimistic. This is not over yet. There will be a major push now by the Marin Institute, and other proponents of the tax, to twist the arms of the three San Francisco supervisors who voted against. It originally looked like Avalos would send the ordinance back to committee as he’d promised the local business community. But he apparently changed his mind and instead sent it for a vote anyway, fueling speculation that he’d been promised that the votes needed for a veto override would be found, and indeed just before it went to a vote the Marin Institute issued an action alert to persuade the three supervisors and the mayor to change their vote, asking their members to contact them for that purpose.

I would suggest that citizens opposed to the alcohol tax do likewise, asking the same supervisors and the mayor to stand firm and not be persuaded by propaganda and misinformation. So contact Carmen Chu, Bevan Dufty and Sean Eisbernd along with mayor Gavin Newsom and ask them to continue their opposition to the alcohol tax proposed by Avalos. And while you’re at it, tell the others supervisors, especially if they’re in your district to not vote for the override. I think it’s reasonable that they should hear from both sides of the argument, not just the one side that the majority of the local media has portrayed, doing a disservice to the democratic process. I assume there’s a time limit for veto overrides, but I’m not sure what the time limit is; anybody know? However long it is, the next few weeks will certainly be interesting.

The San Francisco Chronicle is now on record saying Gavin Newsom must veto S.F. alcohol tax and the Examiner appears doubtful, too. Fingers crossed. If this doesn’t stop now, you can bet we’ll see it in countless communities throughout the state.

Toronado’s Dave Keene & Jennifer Smith Married Saturday At GABF

September 20, 2010 By Jay Brooks

Toronado owner Dave Keene and his longtime girlfriend Jennifer Smith tied the knot during the afternoon session at the Great American Beer Festival on Saturday, September 18. The impromptu ceremony took place in front of the Russian River Brewery booth, with Vinnie Cilurzo as best man and Natalie Cilurzo as Jennifer’s maid of honor. Brett Joyce, president of Rogue Ales, officiated the ceremony, Brett being a minister in the Universal Life Church.

The wedding ceremony, with the bride on the left, the reverend Brett Joyce in the middle with the groom Dave Keene on the right, flanked by best man Vinnie Cilurzo.

The wedding came together organically and wasn’t planned. Apparently there had been another wedding at GABF and recently Marty and Lisa Jones renewed their vows in the hall, but as far as I know this is the first impromptu wedding at GABF. Once Dave and Jen made the decision, there was delay while we found where the best man and maid of honor were at. Eventually, Vinnie and Natalie were found behind the Brooklyn Brewery booth with Garrett Oliver. No one could hear in the hall, but inundated with people calling and texting, Natalie came over to find out what was going on. As soon as she realized what was happening, she sped back to grab Vinnie and Garrett so the ceremony could begin.

But the delay had a beneficial side, too. It allowed Gail Williams, from Beer by Bart, to run around the hall and find a suitable bouquet for the bride, a sprig of hops. It allowed Dave and a few of us to have a 5-minute bachelor party behind the booth. I had a Hopfather IPA. As people gathered to wait for the wedding to begin, it took on the look of something about to happen, and more and more people who knew the parties involved stopped to witness the event. Surrounded by dozens of people, perhaps as many as a hundred, Vinnie shut down his booth and the wedding ceremony began. I walked Jennifer down the aisle and gave her away, a great honor, and Brett began the vows.

Merriment ensues
After Brett declared them husband and wife, the newlyweds embraced for their first kiss as a married couple, as the crowd cheered them on.

The wedding party: Vinnie, Dave, Jennifer, Natalie, minister Brett Joyce and me. I think Garrett Oliver summed it up best, when he said. “I’ve been coming to GABF for nineteen years, and this is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.”

Below is a slideshow of Dave & Jennifer’s wedding. This Flickr gallery is best viewed in full screen. To view it that way, after clicking on the arrow in the center to start the slideshow, click on the button on the bottom right with the four arrows pointing outward on it, to see the photos in glorious full screen. Once in full screen slideshow mode, click on “Show Info” to identify each photo.

Napa Smith Brewery Sold

September 20, 2010 By Jay Brooks

napa-smith
The Napa Smith Brewery of Napa, California has been sold to Pelican Brands, an alcohol brand management company from Indiana. According to the CSBA, the “purchase includes seven acres of land and 50,000 sq.ft. of production, warehousing and office space.” Pelican Brands plans to make Napa Smith beer available nationwide over the next year.

Brewmaster Don Barkley, who worked for America’s first modern craft brewery, New Albion, and also founded Mendocino Brewing, will be remaining with the brewery.

It appears that Pelican Brands has ambitious plans for the brand. J. Smoke Wallin, Chairman & CEO of Pelican Brands, said, “It is our belief that while a few will become regional brands, a very select few will become national brands. In a press release, the company stated that Napa Smith will be available nationwide by mid 2011.
“In the past three months alone, Napa Smith, through Pelican’s platform, has expanded into eight new states. Pelican Brands will provide the growth capital needed for further expansion. Napa’s winemakers made the Napa Valley into a global name and destination. We are proud to continue this tradition by bringing beer — brewed with the same level of quality and attention to detail — to discerning consumers everywhere.”

SF Alcohol Tax Passes In Initial Vote

September 14, 2010 By Jay Brooks

san-francisco
To no one’s surprise, the proposed ordinance to impose a new tax on alcohol sold in San Francisco passed today in a city supervisors’ meeting. The next step (before last week’s postponed meeting) was that it would be voted on a second time at another board meeting on September 14, so now I presume any second vote will be at a later meeting.

It will then go to mayor Gavin Newsom, who has ten days to either sign or veto it. The mayor is on the record saying he’ll veto it, at which point it will be sent back to the Board of Supervisors who can override Newsom’s veto with eight votes. That would most likely be in early to mid-October.

As an aside, I’ve noticed every news report lately, even NPR, that mentions Newsom’s intention to veto the ordinance also brings up the fact that he used to be in the alcohol business, as if that means he’s incapable of deciding anything impartially. It’s more likely he understands the arguments of the small brewers, vintners, distillers, bar owners, retailers, etc. who oppose it. But it’s sure nice to see that unbiased reporting by our local media, way to not take sides.

During the hearing supervisor Chris Daly called those who disagreed with the proposed ordinance “whiners” … excuse, me “f___ing whiners.” Very classy. You can see the stream in the Marin Institute’s twitter feed of the meeting. NOTE: I initially said it was the Marin Institute who was tweeting that, not realizing it was Daly who said it. I apologize for the mistake.

The Politics Of Deception

September 10, 2010 By Jay Brooks

I was going to stay away from commenting on a new bill in California, AB 1060, really I was. Something about it bothered me from the start, the problem it seeks to fix never seemed credible, but it seemed inevitable that it would pass anyway. It was actually introduced in February of 2009 and has been winding its way through the state legislature ever since. It was recently passed and is on its way to the Governator’s office for signature or veto.

What AB 1060 does it make it illegal for stores, primarily grocery stores, to sell alcohol using the new self-serve checkout machines that are popping up all over the place. The argument is that underage kids can get around the roadblocks in the system set up to keep underage people from being able to — gasp — purchase alcohol. The bill also tackles the made-up problems of intoxicating people buying booze and theft, though it’s not the theft of the alcohol that worries the state, but the theft of the tax revenue lost in the theft.

The bill was spun so that it’s all about “Alcohol & Teen Drinking Prevention,” as is made clear by the Yes on AB 1060 website. They write:

AB 1060 only requires that customers walk over a few feet to a checkout line with a cashier who can check ID. It’s not too much to ask to protect our youth and our communities.
It is only a matter of time that our youth will exploit a vulnerable system to purchase alcohol without showing ID. We must take action to stop it now.

As they state, “[i]t’s not too much to ask to protect our youth and our communities.” And no, perhaps it’s not, but it is just one more way in which the roughly 80% of the population who is above 21 is inconvenienced yet again in our out-of-proportion drive to “protect” the young’uns. And that’s why I initially just let it go, because I’d sound like even more of a jackass than I usually do if I got worked up about not being able to more quickly check out of the grocery store every time I wanted to buy beer.

One funny thing I can’t help but note is how our nation’s youth is portrayed as being at once naive and in great need of being protected and, of course, not be able to responsibly drink alcohol but yet at the same time they say it’s “only a matter of time [before] our youth will exploit a vulnerable system to purchase alcohol without showing ID.” Wow, we must have a pretty savvy and well-organized generation of kids who can take down the best computer minds who created — you have to admit — the pretty amazing self-checkout machine.

Anyway, what’s changed my mind is that MADD, Join Together and the Marin Institute are all supporting the bill and urging Governor Terminator to sign it into law.

Except, as an aside, I have to mention that the Marin Institute is supposedly a “watchdog.” What are they doing weighing in on this? Their “mission” is “to protect the public from the impact of the alcohol industry’s negative practices.” This has absolutely nothing to do with the alcohol industry, this is about grocery stores and youth access to alcohol (supposedly, anyway). Making it harder for everyone to buy alcohol draped in the protective mantle of “it’s for the kids” is the domain of the neo-prohibitionists, something they assure me they’re not.

But when you look deeper, you find that this bill may not really be about the kids at all, and instead may be about money and unions. The support of the neo-prohibitionists was either a calculated ploy on the part of the bill’s sponsors or a very happy accident. State Senator Tom Harmon, from the 35th District (Orange County coastline) has a very different story to tell. Last month, he wrote AB 1060 is a Solution in Search of a Problem, which is below here in its entirety. It made no difference, of course, in the final vote, because a good story, especially one that’s about protecting the kiddies, beats the truth every time.

When something looks too good to be true, a smart person starts wondering what’s behind it. In the case of Assembly Bill 1060, you don’t have to look very far. Presented as a feel-good law to protect kids, this bill is really about protecting union jobs.
AB 1060 purports to solve a number of “problems.” Minors sneaking alcohol through self-service checkouts, drunken shoppers buying more booze, and the state missing out on its share of sales taxes because self-check out technology facilitates stealing. None of these arguments makes much sense.
The bill theorizes that kids could buy alcohol beverages at self-serve check aisles. In fact, there is already a lock-out mechanism at such stands preventing anyone from buying alcohol without a clerk present to sign off on their age. Next?
Protecting inebriated shoppers from themselves is a real howler. Anybody who’s ever used one of those self-serve check-out stands knows it’s difficult enough for a sober person.
Finally, the bill’s author worries that the state will lose sales tax money if more booze is boosted. Is this about money or about protecting customers? If this were a problem, would stores — who have more to lose than the state if their merchandise is stolen — have instituted self check-out in the first place? Obviously not.
AB 1060 would deny a liquor license to any store “using a point-of-sale system with limited or no assistance from an employee of the licensee.” Read that again. It means a store that sells alcohol beverages could not have any self-serve check stands.
The bill’s true target is Fresh and Easy, a new supermarket chain that features all-self-service check stands. Fresh and Easy supermarkets are designed to provide affordable food choices by holding down costs through automation and energy efficiency. They’re finding a niche in low-income, underserved neighborhoods. Their workers are non-union.
AB 1060 mandates greater employee supervision of self-service check stands, increasingly used in major supermarkets. And it would limit supermarkets’ low-cost, self-service technology.
Instead of helping constituents find accessible, affordable food, this bill by Assemblyman Hector De La Torre will raise food prices for all shoppers in order to protect supermarket unions. It has nothing to do with protecting youngsters, drunks or taxpayers.

But none of that matters to the neo-prohibitionists. They care about restricting access to alcohol for everybody.

A Conversation With Fritz Maytag

September 9, 2010 By Jay Brooks

anchor-steam
Reason TV, the video arm of Reason magazine (who’ve I’ve written for), was created through a grant from Drew Carey. They’ve done a number of short online videos on a variety of subjects, and have their own YouTube channel. They even did one based on, or perhaps inspired by, the article I did for them a few years ago, entitled Beer: An American Revolution. More recently, they did an interesting 10-minute interview with Fritz Maytag, the godfather of the craft beer movement in America. If you’ve heard Maytag speak before or have been around him any length of time, there’s nothing new in the interview, but with him moving into the role of Emeritus as new owners take over the day-to-day operations, it’s great to have a video record of some of Fritz’s stories.

« Previous Page