What a state! Have a money-making business, close it. Hide bottles in
restaurants. We will soon need passports to get in and out of this place. As a
friends of ours said when we moved here, "Why in the world are you leaving
the United States to move to Utah?"
As I recall the Liquor commission will be 'auctioning' off some liquor licenses.
If there are no State Liquor stores near to 'hot spots' for drinks, then the
auction prices will be higher. It also seems that the liquor
commission can now have closed meetings. I'm thinking the legislature
orchestrated these three things for one purpose: To raise more money for those
licenses and possibly their campaign accounts.
The State Liquor management is the leanest and most well run operation in State
government, Why? They receive no tax payer funds to run their operation, its
run like a for profit business. So they don't even fit the rules of other State
operations that have layers of State employees they can just down grade to keep
them on the payroll and say they are cutting. What other agency returns
thousands of dollars to the local and state coffers without using tax dollars to
pay their employees. The Gov better act fast or see the golden hen sacrificed.
And should it be run by private business? Why use tax dollars for all the state
regulators you will need or allow the unions and crime bosses reap the profits?
As I talked with legislators in a dozen other states they all agree they wish
they had Utah's system and reap the profit for their state budgets.
Re: riflemanOne of many - (1996)256F. 3d 1061Utah Licensed
beverage association, a Utah non-profit corporation; Wayne Benson; and New Moon
Press, Inc., a Utah corporation d.b.a. CATALYST, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Micheal Leavitt, Governor, State of Utah; Janet Graham Attorney
General, State of Utah; Jerry D. Fenn, Chair, Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control
Commission; Nicholas Hales, Vickie McCall, Ted Lewis, and Carl Hawkins, Members,
Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
Huh, makes sense to shutter a revenue generating arm of the business? As long
as it's not a drain on other budgets then who really cares if the stores are
open or not? Let them operate from their own sales and open/close stores as
needed based on sales.
I don' drink alcohol, but people are going to drink, and it just shows just how
stupid our elected officials are. Maybe we need some new ones that will look
out for the taxpayers interest.
"...customers in some areas of St. George will drive over the nearby border
to Nevada if one of the stores closes.:" This would be forcing people to
commit a federal offense by transporting alcohol over state line. Since this is
illegal, another strategy would be to allow privately-owned businesses the
ability compete with.State and privately owned liquor stores exist
in other states, it can harmonize its existence in Utah as well. Where one state
liquor store closes, a privatized store can open - this would be in conjunction
with the state's budgetary cuts and allow them to free up their budget. Owning a
private store would also provide taxes/expenses the store would pay back to the
state government as well. So a win win.I also don't understand the
loopholes of buying alcohol on Sundays. In Utah County (with the exception of
Springville city), if you want to drink beer in the city you can't buy a pack
from, you can just simply drive to a restaurant that supplies the alcohol. Why
permit Springville to sell it, but no other city? Do one or the other.
@DN Subscriber: While I agree with your idea of privatizing liquor sales, the
state won't do it because it will indeed lower state revenues. The reason is
that, today, the state has a liquor monopoly (which is indeed a socialist
program) and there is a legislated 82 percent markup. (82 percent!) The profits
are designated for school lunch (another socialist program). Only if enough
people start bootlegging from our adjoining neighbor states will the program
fail, just as the 18th Amendment to the Constitution ultimately failed.
While the liquor stores are profitable, they are hoping to increase per store
profitability by reducing the number of stores and leveraging those costs
against consistent sales. Excepting those area's which border other States,
realistically this will probably "work" more or less. From a cost
perspective I think this plan probably makes sense. Still, I can't get my head
wrapped around the idea that the State can just monopolize an industry because
it needs income. Perhaps it ought cut costs elsewhere, or find ways to improve
the efficiency of other systems.
@awsomeron1 | 9:40 p.m. There's another "prophet" in
Only in Utah!
What a State we live in aye?The predominate religion says don't drink...!
Yet,The pre-dominate voices in the Governors office who belong to the
pre-dominate religion says, These stores bring in the State a lot of money.So what message is being sent?Don't drink, but really we need you to
because it brings the State so much revenue!What a State is all I
can say! It is a sin to drink for some, yet it is not a sin to make
sure the revenue coming from drinking is there???????No wonder some
young folks have some issues! We are the ones messing them up!
Republicans like to talk about running government like a business. If so, I
would suggest that the State close liquors that lose money, instead of stores
than make money - anyone hear about letting the market and the consumer decide.
The socialist idea that the taxpayer must subsidize money-losing stores seems so
against this state's Republican capitalist society.
This is Clearly Stupid. As the Stores Make more then it takes to run them. That is called Profit and I know that is Anti Government in Nature. If
they do not make more then it takes to run them, then Manage them better.
Employees reflect management. Mangers do not hire people who threaten their
jobs.I do not think that being over qualified , should be a reason
to Not hire someone.I have a friend who will fire anyone that uses
the term "I am justa" also any one who tells him, we did it this way
at McDonalds.Now the flip of this is I will not lose any sleep over
a place that Sells Alcahol Closing.However the State is cutting off
their nose despite their face, and need to rethink this.
The State of Utah needs to pattern their liquor laws after the State to the
south, Arizona. You can go into any grocery store that has a license to sell
alcohol and purchase any kind of alcoholic beverage that you might want. Brewers
would welcome a change in the liquor laws, too. Utah is the only State that
requires them to make a 3.2% alcohol beer, a process that takes quite a bit of
time to accomplish.A State has no business running a retail
business. A private company could do it for a lot less cost, and the State could
still profit from that businesses activity. It is long past time for the State
of Utah to allow private businesses to sell liquor.
Re: bulldog72 | 7:33 p.m. March 31, 2011 If Utah was in clear violation of
the constitution the ACLU would be down our throats before you could say
"lawsuit".Translation: Which specific constitutional
violation(s) do you have in mind?
sNice to see that Separation of church and state is still about 250 years behind
in this state. They make money for the state, so we cut their budget. Don't
tell me that there is no religous agenda influencing our government in this
state, you would be a liar. This state government is in such clear violation of
the constitution it's not even funny.
OK. I have a question. Why are we closing stores when they just opened up a
brand new great big one on prime property in Holladay? Just goes to show that
nobody is in charge. Government should not be in business.
I don't drink, but isn't it communism when the government owns a business? Is
Utah the only communist alcohol state in the U.S.?
Close them all, fire the state workers and get the state out of the liquor
business.That should be a private enterprise business, not a state
run monopoly.It will save a lot of state spending, and likely return
a lot more to the state in taxes if privatized.