State liquor store closes; governor hopes to avoid more

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • golfinggrandma Sand, UT
    April 2, 2011 8:38 p.m.

    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?"

  • Nicky Gee Farmington, Utah
    April 2, 2011 5:33 p.m.

    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.

  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    April 1, 2011 9:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Murray Dad Murray, UT
    April 1, 2011 3:22 p.m.

    Re: rifleman
    One of many - (1996)
    256F. 3d 1061
    Utah Licensed beverage association, a Utah non-profit corporation; Wayne Benson; and New Moon Press, Inc., a Utah corporation d.b.a. CATALYST, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    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.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    April 1, 2011 3:00 p.m.

    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.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    April 1, 2011 11:52 a.m.

    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.

  • AH Orem, UT
    April 1, 2011 11:26 a.m.

    "...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.

  • The Dude Abides Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2011 9:30 a.m.

    @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.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    April 1, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 1, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    @awsomeron1 | 9:40 p.m.

    There's another "prophet" in charge.

    Nanny State!

  • Tom Smith Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2011 6:05 a.m.

    Only in Utah!

  • troutman Washington, UT
    April 1, 2011 12:44 a.m.

    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!

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    March 31, 2011 10:53 p.m.

    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.

  • awsomeron1 Oahu, HI
    March 31, 2011 9:40 p.m.

    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.

  • itsjustme Vernal, UT
    March 31, 2011 8:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 31, 2011 8:20 p.m.

    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?

  • bulldog72 Holladay, UT
    March 31, 2011 7:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Let's be real Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    March 31, 2011 6:31 p.m.

    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.?

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 31, 2011 6:24 p.m.

    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.