Annandale’s reps in Richmond oppose privatizing liquor stores
Annandale’s representatives in the state legislature oppose Gov. Bob McDonnell’s proposal to privatize state-run liquor stores. McDonnell, a Republican, has been pushing the privatization concept in town meetings across the state and is expected to announce a detailed proposal next week.
McDonnell contends that privatizating the stores now run by the Virginia Department of Alcohol Beverage and Control could yield an upfront windfall of $300 million to $800 million that he wants to use to fix the state’s road system.
As a proponent of limited government, McDonnell doesn’t believe the state should be in the business of selling liquor, and he claims the proposal would benefit consumers by resulting in more liquor stores in more convenient locations (like 7-11s and Wal-Mart) and lower prices. Virginia has 332 ABC stores, and McDonnell’s plan would expand the number of sites selling liquor to anywhere from 800 to 1,200. He wants Virginians to buy their liquor in state, rather than shop in D.C. or Maryland.
Rep. Kaye Kory, a Democrat representing the 38th District, says she doesn’t support privatizing ABC stores now, but thinks “someone may think of a way to make it work.” Noting that privatization would take away the $200 million a year that now flows to education and health, she says, “we need that money and we need to be able to count on it.”
If the governor’s plan yields $500 million up front, “what will happen after that is uncertain,” Kory says. “The only way to make privatization work is to sell more liquor licenses,” she says. “I’ve never heard anyone say they can’t find enough places to buy alcohol.”
State Majority Leader Richard Saslaw (D-35th District) says the measure isn’t likely to pass the Senate and questioned McDonnell’s revenue estimates, noting the only way to achieve them is to triple the amount of liquor sold in Virginia. “We’re going to build roads by putting drunks out there driving these cars,” Saslaw told reporters.
Sen. Vivian Watts, (D-39th District), who represents areas adjacent to Annandale, also expressed opposition to privatizing ABCs, noting there is no accurate estimation on the return, and while more money is needed for transportation, this plan would take away money from education and other state programs.
The one-time boost in transportation would be “small change compared to what we need,” Watts says. “We need $2 billion a year.” And “if the goal is to reduce drunk driving, we should retain the state-controlled system.”
According to a report in the Washington Post, McDonnell said privatization would not be likely to result in more alcohol-related accidents or crime, citing a study by a George Mason University economist and another study by an economist at Duquesne University.
Other researchers came to the opposite conclusion. The Post also quotes researcher Ted Miller, who estimated that “Virginia would see 220 more alcohol-related deaths a year if it gave up its retail monopoly and $40 million a year in additional costs related to criminal justice and substance abuse.”
A report released in August by the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy concluded that “low-income and minority communities are at greater risk of being impacted by the negative social consequences of increased alcohol availability due to privatization.” The center also says dismantling the existing system does not addresses the longer term revenue needs of the state.
The manager of the Annandale ABC declined to comment for this story.
5 responses to “Annandale’s reps in Richmond oppose privatizing liquor stores”
Leave a reply
As you may know, Virginia is the only state that bans the use and sale of detectors. There is no evidence that the detector ban increases highway safety. Our nation’s fatality rates have fallen consistently for almost two decades. Virginia’s fatality rate has also fallen, but not any more dramatically than it has nationwide. Research has even shown that radar detector owners have a lower accident rate than motorists who do not own a detector.
Maintaining the ban is not in the best interest of Virginians or visitors to the state. I know and know of people that will not drive in Virginia due to this ban. Unjust enforcement practices are not unheard of, and radar detectors can keep safe motorists from being exploited by abusive speed traps. Likewise, the ban has a negative impact on Virginia’s business community. Electronic distributors lose business to neighboring states and Virginia misses out on valuable sales tax revenue.
Radar detector bans do not work. Research and experience show that radar detector bans do not result in lower accident rates, improved speed-limit compliance or reduce auto insurance expenditures.
• The Virginia radar detector ban is difficult and expensive to enforce. The Virginia ban diverts precious law enforcement resources from more important duties.
• Radar detectors are legal in the rest of the nation, in all 49 other states. In fact, the first state to test a radar detector ban, Connecticut, repealed the law – it ruled the law was ineffective and unfair. It is time for our Virginia to join the rest of the nation.
• It has never been shown that radar detectors cause accidents or even encourage motorists to drive faster than they would otherwise. The Yankelovich – Clancy – Shulman Radar Detector Study conducted in 1987, showed that radar detector users drove an average of 34% further between accidents (233,933 miles versus 174,554 miles) than non radar detector users. The study also showed that they have much higher seat belt use compliance. If drivers with radar detectors have fewer accidents, it follows that they have reduced insurance costs – it is counterproductive to ban radar detectors.
• In a similar study performed in Great Britain by MORI in 2001 the summary reports that "Users (of radar detectors) appear to travel 50% further between accidents than non-users. In this survey the users interviewed traveling on average 217,353 miles between accidents compared to 143,401 miles between accidents of those non-users randomly drawn from the general public." The MORI study also reported "Three quarters agree, perhaps unsurprisingly, that since purchasing a radar detector they have become more conscious about keeping to the speed limit…" and "Three in five detector users claim to have become a safer driver since purchasing a detector."
• Modern radar detectors play a significant role in preventing accidents and laying the technology foundation for the Safety Warning System® (SWS). Radar detectors with SWS alert motorists to oncoming emergency vehicles, potential road hazards, and unusual traffic conditions. There are more than 10 million radar detectors with SWS in use nationwide. The federal government has earmarked $2.1 million for further study of the SWS over a three-year period of time. The U.S. Department of Transportation is administering grants to state and local governments to purchase the SWS system and study its effectiveness (for example, in the form of SWS transmitters for school buses and emergency vehicles). The drivers of Virginia deserve the right to the important safety benefits that SWS delivers.
Please sign this petition and help to repeal this ban and give drivers in Virginia the freedom to know if they are under surveillance and to use their property legally:
http://www.stoptheban.org
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-the-virginia-radar-detector-ban
It seems a bit like selling the cow to buy milk. Whereas it would be convenient to have more retailers, I can't see how it would help Virginia's long term financial problems.
Can someone tell me what radar detectors have to do with Liquor stores?
Gerry Connolly must go away! Swept out this fall.
Ms Kory – “I’ve never heard anyone say they can’t find enough places to buy alcohol.”
There are not enough places in VA to buy alcohol. There, now you've heard it.
Mr. Saslaw – "We’re going to build roads by putting drunks out there driving these cars."
This is positively the most idiotic statement I have heard this year. Congratulations to Mr Saslaw for making an ass of himself.
Ms. Watts – “if the goal is to reduce drunk driving, we should retain the state-controlled system.”
Really? How is this? Drunk drivers don't purchase alcohol from the state but they would from private sellers? Somehow, the logic is missing from this.
Whether it raises more money (business taxes, more people employed/increased income taxes and licquor licenses seem to suggest it would) is a valid question. Would it be enough to fund transportation needs is even a better question. Philosophically, I don't like the government selling alcohol and I have no problem with this initiative.