I-1100/1105 ... the costs! but your thoughs? (Seattle: sale, houses, job market)

[eskercurve]

Oh wow. I just got my voter pamphlet, and unlike a lot of people, I actually read the language and read the cost estimates.

$500 million in costs in lost revenue. At a time when our state economy is running a deficit? And this being proposed by large wineries and alcohol firms?

I also found the ads for these proposals very misleading. The taxes for the alcohol and stuff will be there but the proponents of the measure also recognize the state will lose at LEAST 500 million. And why are we sacrificing our schools, cops, first responders, and our park system to preserve our beautiful landscape - just for a few bucks saved at the counter for out-of-state terrible p*ss beer?

I, personally, cannot fathom how anyone would vote for a measure that was put forth by the large alcohol firms and the cut-rate warehouses like Costco. This may also run a lot of smaller firms like Diamond Knot and places like that out of business as out-of-state mega-billions alcohol firms flood the state with cheap booze. And all for saving a few bucks (literally, just a few) for a six-pack of out-of-state swill beer. Ugh.

Personal feelings aside, from an economic point of view, I wouldn't want to see an INCREASE in alcohol consumption to make up for the LOSS of revenue. The state would have to raise taxes on other things to make up the loss. I personally don't mind paying a few extra bucks for booze if it means our cops and schoolteachers won't have to make due with less.

But what do you people think? I personally believe in a sound and reasonable discussion about measures.

[Fat Freddy]

The only reason anything is on the ballot is because it increases the profits for the special interest that financed it.

Unless you are one of these special interests, vote NO on everything.

[azoria]

"And why are we sacrificing our schools, cops, first responders, and our park system?"

Because years ago these public workers were promised benefits and pensions from fantasyland. They want everybody in the state to foot the bill for their cushy job perks. And they want to whine and issue doomsday predictions if we don't pony up the money.

The hell with them.

[cdelena]

I do not want my government in business, selling alcohol or anything else as private industry will do a better job at a lower cost (while paying taxes and employing staff in a competitive environment).

IMO the state has ample opportunity to balance the budget without forcing monopoly control over this business that operates very effectively in most states as a licensed private enterprise.

[Ira500]

I'm voting against both of them.
My position on this has changed. When I first moved here 30+ years ago, I thought it was silly that the state was in the liquor business.
Now, I'm happy for the revenue that the profits from the liquor stores provide.
We all want the services that government provides, from fixing roads to schools to parks to providing police and fire.
500 million in lost revenue is not a drop in the bucket. If it passes, either taxes will be raised elsewhere to pay for it, or services will be reduced. I don't have a big problem with drinkers paying taxes. I drink. I'm willing to contribute.
I also have to agree with Fat Freddy here. Who's behind the initiatives and what are their motives?
Is it for the betterment of the people? Or is it to increase somebody's profit?

[eskercurve]

Originally Posted by cdelena

I do not want my government in business, selling alcohol or anything else as private industry will do a better job at a lower cost (while paying taxes and employing staff in a competitive environment).

IMO the state has ample opportunity to balance the budget without forcing monopoly control over this business that operates very effectively in most states as a licensed private enterprise.

I am curious how you think putting hard liquor into convenience stores and gas stations will make things any more competitive. Washington state has one of the most wonderful and diverse set of microbreweries and large brewers too, has wonderful small and large wineries, and employs thousands of people. If you reduce the number of places that can compete, you effectively kill jobs, since the places that will grow because of this have huge plants that can either just expand or increase the rate they produce stuff, and only helps the big guns.

I think passing either I-1100 or I-1105 will create a "Wal-Mart" effect. Sure, you get cheaper product, but you lose jobs and lose income as a result as mom and pop shops cannot compete with mega-billion dollar corporations or their international network of suppliers.

Is this "competition" or is this big business trying to expand their bottom line by screwing the little guys?

And while you may be right about the state having better ways to balance the budget, I don't see how losing $500 million a year can be a good thing or make matters better.

I also think that it will increase alcohol related violence and accidents/negligence. Cheaper product -> facilitating and abetting bad behavior.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that the people who live off the taxes coming from the sale of alcohol are getting a dream salary and lifestyle. Far from it. Know any firemen? They live damn close to needing state support for income assistance near Seattle. And Seattle needs firemen. And cops. And trash collectors. And roadworks (oh man need better ones). And teachers. And waterworks. And utilities. And ... you get the idea. And NONE of these people apart from the handful of engineers make a good salary.

[azoria]

You're missing the point of why there are threatened cutbacks and why there is not enough revenue.

It's not about paying police and firemen and teachers NOW, today for working a shift, it's about funding pension obligations and promised health care obligations for thousands of public employees already in the pipeline for promises made years and decades ago that cannot now be paid for. And then adding more employees every year everafter on the private sector dole.

You think these ads are non denominational and police/fire/teachers are not looking out for their own? They're all on the government payroll and it is in their best interest that the state and local government continue to bleed the public dry for the benefit of government union payouts into perpetuity.

As to those incendiary ads about driveby booze and convenience store mayhem if the government is not in charge--what.do.you.expect.them.to.say?? That the world will likely survive nicely without their stewardship? That the nanny state can live without them? That people will behave both well and badly whether they are punched in or not?

Seriously.

There are all kinds of places all over the world where you can buy booze at 5 AM, dance till dawn, and the public is not endangered. It's all rhetoric designed to strike fear into the hearts of citizens that 'Rebel Without A Cause' is on a motorcycle ready to destroy the heart of the community unless Public Safety is standing by ready to save the status quo.

Election season TV ads are not necessarily a good way to judge the merits of the issues.

[j_k_k]

I'm not sure what is even the point of voting for or against initiatives. The legislature just ignores or circumvents the ones they don't like.

[CarlB328]

it's about funding pension obligations and promised health care obligations for thousands of public employees already in the pipeline for promises made years and decades ago

Why do you want to steal peoples' retirements from them, bankrupt them, and force them into the job market again when we don't have enough jobs now?

[Wolf14016]

I can understand the argument against both initiatives, but I'll be voting Yes on I-1100.

It's a matter of what the state should and shouldn't be doing. I don't think selling liquor is a vital state function. I'm all for raising the taxes on liquor to compensate for any lost revenue from the closing of the stores.

I don't drink a lot, but it's still annoying to have to find a liquor store when I do want a bottle of something.

And to the people who allege that this will cause kids to drink, or will cause more drunk driving: Washington State, with it's state run liquor monopoly, has a higher % of drunk driving and teen alcohol abuse then most states without a state run liquor system. I'll try and find the study that proved this. And of course, that argument doesn't make sense, because kids can still try and buy beer and wine from grocery stores now.

Just my .02 cents.