Editorial: Small steps by OLCC are not enough
Published 12:00 am Friday, November 29, 2013
Oregonians have the worst of all worlds when it comes to liquor sales. Booze is highly taxed; sales are limited to fewer than 300 locations and prices are set by state bureaucrats. Aside from liquor store contract agents and, presumably, Oregon Liquor Control Commission employees, almost no one would be upset if the current system simply disappeared.
Instead, we’re getting a series of small steps from OLCC, which hopes to fend off a move to privatize the system by making them.
Step one came, arguably, when the state allowed some grocery stores, including Ray’s in Bend, to have self-contained liquor outlets within them. Sunday sales are now part of the mix, as is a recent move to allow some agents to sell beer and wine alongside hard spirits.
A bigger step looms, assuming the Legislature goes along with the plan. If it does, OLCC will allow relatively large grocers to sell spirits in addition to beer and wine.
Contract agents, understandably, don’t like the plan. They worry that if the local supermarket can sell vodka as well as tonic, they will lose business. Their ability to run their businesses as they see fit is already limited.
They cannot set prices, decide when or if to put products on sale, have full control over their hours of operation or even cut expenses to increase profit. The state is responsible for each of those things and actually owns the booze the stores sell.
Craft distillers are unhappy, too, at the prospect of having to compete with the likes of Smirnoff for precious shelf space at the neighborhood market. We don’t know if their fears are overblown. At least some markets make the sale of locally brewed beer a reason to visit, and locally distilled spirits could get the same attention.
No matter what lawmakers and the OLCC decide, about sales in markets or anything else, someone is sure to be unhappy. With a system as tightly controlled as Oregon’s is and under pressure to relax those controls, there are sure to be losers as well as winners.
In the end, the best move would be to get the state out of the distribution and sales business altogether. Let it continue to collect taxes on sales, of course, and let it continue to oversee enforcement of laws against sales of alcohol to minors and the like. Let it train servers and, perhaps, grocery store employees if it feels it must. Assure that the tax structure is such that the state doesn’t lose money on the change.
Once that’s done, let the local supermarket, the big-box retailer and the current contract agent compete for customers in the way that most other retailers do, by meeting the needs of their customers better than someone else can.