Which is More Family Oriented, a Semi-Automatic or a Beer?
An Overheardian shares her thoughts about the proposed beer and wine sales in University Park.
This is a family oriented community and there is no reason to sell beer and wine in Snider Plaza.
OK. Gotcha. But if we’re going in that direction, what reason is there to buy a semi-automatic weapon in Snider Plaza? There must be a good one because we’ve got two locations in the same family oriented half mile. I’m just sayin’.
By Merritt Patterson
Apr. 26, 2010 | 12:13 pm | 38 Comments | Comments RSS
38 comments to "Which is More Family Oriented, a Semi-Automatic or a Beer?"
Ah, it’s good to be home.
You would be hard pressed to find a semi-auto in the first shop as they specialize in twice shoot double guns, aka, double barrel shotguns and rifles. Nothing very semi there. And why would you imply that guns are not family oriented? Many families shoot skeet and sporting clays together or targets with – gasp- semi-automatic pistols. Many tens of thousands more innocent people die or are traumatized by alcohol than firearms. In fact, this country has defended itself from tyranny of all kinds with – guns. Not sure how many battles we have won with beer and wine.
She is not saying you shouldn’t be able to buy guns in Snider Plaza. Rather, she is questioning those commenters who are Loony Tunes enough to think that the mere selling of alcohol is dangerous to the community. It is reasonable to assume such persons might also fear the sale of .50 cal sniper rifles (JA had one, it was $15k, i wanted it) and AR-15′s.
Finally, while I don’t have the numbers, I think it is accurate to say that we beat the Native Americans with beer and wine. Maybe if we pass the law you can open Eric’s Things That Have Won Battles Emporium, featuring the finest whiskeys, guns, and blankets infected with small pox.
I resent your inference. Not ALL people in HP are Satanists. ; )
However did I miss that incident in the police blog?
Again I challenge anyone who would like to see beer and wine sales or package liquor sales in UP to pony up some studies that show how much we will benefit by it.
Again I challenge anyone who would like to see beer and wine sales or package liquor sales in UP to pony up some studies that show how much we will benefit by it.
http://texaspetitionstrategies.com/Perryman.htm
The last paragraph from the Perryman reports says While there are certain social issues to be considered in a wet/dry decision ….
In my opinion, one-half to a million dollars in tax revenue to the City of UP hires crossing guards, puts in new lights, and could re-do a whole lot of parks (tongue-in-cheek).
The social issue, as highlighted in the original blog posting, quoting Merritt’s reader, is indeed the issue.
PS: Max for Mayor!!!
Very generic study. I don’t think you can make a very good case for extrapolating Case 1 into UP’s situation. We are 200% of the per capita income. It certainly would not account for changing demographics of a university town. It doesn’t take into account education levels which has an impact on alcohol consumption. It is obviously funded by the alcohol industry. Are their any other studies that you can point to done by a local agency, maybe by our own city government?
If I can find a generic study, like the Perryman study, that suggests that video slot parlors would generate income for our town would you be on board with that? How about New Fine Arts-Park Cities; that would also generate additional tax revenue. At what point in time do we say no to those industries that dangle tax revenue in front of our faces as if that is all that matters.
The Perryman study cannot be extrapolated into our situtation for the very few reasons I outlined above. If I could see the raw data I could probably come up with a few other problems as to extrapolation to UP.
I guess it really comes down to the fact that I don’t appreciate people like you trying to restrict other’s ability to purchase alcohol. Frankly, it’s none of your business whether an adult wants to purchase and consume alcohol.
I acknowledged that none of the three generic case examples fit UP perfectly. But even in the smallest case, it was $0.5M in tax receipts. For me, I had absolutely no idea what the range of numbers could be before Max pointed us to that study.
Could that study have been funded by the alcohol industry? Sure. Are the numbers stretched one way or the other? Eh, probably. Even if they are 2x or 3x off, that’s still decent enough numbers to make it worthwhile.
As @Gagree notes, come up with one that shows the other side if you think this one is prejudiced.
So let’s take the tax revenue issue off the table and agree, I hope, that it would generate a small, but reasonable amount of money for the city coffers.
Then, it becomes a social question. Personally, I think the current restrictions are a bit arcane. So let’s take a vote and majority rules.
The fact of the matter Gagree NO ONE IS PREVENTING YOU FROM PURCHASING OR CONSUMING ALCOHOL. Centennial, 7-ll, 2 Tom Thumbs to name just a few are within 5 minutes of any part of UP.
Others claim it will mean a beer barn on every corner – I argue only if they can afford the property and property taxes that go with the location. I mean on my corner, Tom Thumb, 7-Eleven and Whole Foods will all probably start stocking beer and wine. This will be something any new place will have to compete with. The consumption isn’t going to increase, only the purchasing patterns will change.
I’ll trust an employee of Tom Thumb to card my kid over an employee of R&D Liquor Mart any day.
Good one. I have my master’s degree. Just about all of my friends and associates have at least a bachelor’s degree and the majority have advanced degrees. We all drink.
Newsflash Tucker, it’s 2010. Like matt said, let me know if you need help putting oil in those street lamps.
We aren’t just talking about drinking, but drinking less. Unless of course you, with your master’s degree, down a six pack every night like a blue collar worker might. Apparently the only 2 reasons for changing the current law is tax revenue and convenience. If we are talking tax revenue then THE AMOUNT YOU CONSUME BECOMES AN ISSUE. A more blue collar, less educated community will likely consume more alcohol then one in which there are larger numbers of college grads with white collar jobs. A community with less religious institutions might also consume less alcohol. The number of families with children under 12 years of age can also be a variable in alcohol consumption.
So when you lump all communities into a study in which only 2 variables are looked at (size of community and per capita income)like the Perryman report you have a very general study.
Your logic mirrors Gagee’s enough to make me wonder if your the same person. Save yourself the trouble of trying to remember all your names and just stick to one.
Please look thru the list of communities that have used this study in a quest to change their laws. Ask yourself: What does UP have in common with these communities?
City of Lancaster
City of Rowlett
City of Corsicana
City of Woodway
City of Niederwald
Hays County, Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2
City of North Richland Hills
City of Allen
City of Brownwood
City of Seven Points
City of Mesquite
City of Carrolton
City of Georgetown
City of Palestine
City of Bellmead
City of San Angelo
City of Arlington
City of Lindale
City of Lewisville
City of Garland (Largest city in Texas to go from dry to wet)
City of Sherman
City of Willow Park
City of Melissa
City of Sachse
City of Mansfield
City of Waco
City of Texarkana
Polk County
Angelina County (2nd largest dry county
to vote wet)
City of Wylie
City of Murphy
City of Denton
City of Richardson
City of Irving
Town of Flower Mound
City of Longview
City of Midlothian
City of Rockwall
City of DeSoto
Brazoria County
Village of Wimberley
Village of Salado
Angelina County (anti-Prohibition)
City of Anna (anti-Prohibition)
City of Ennis
City of Terrell
City of Jasper
City of Tyler
City of Wilmer
City of Hutchins
City of Fort Worth
City of Irving
City of Waxahachie
City of Weatherford
City of Greenville
City of Lorena
City of Southlake
City of Malakoff
City of Cleburne
City of Winona
Smith County JP 4
City of Rusk
City of Buffalo
City of Paris
City of Emory
Town of Westlake
Lubbock County
City of Burleson
Denton County, JP 5
T
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5n0681216r24383/
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/333
I love the way the phrase this:
Three main hypotheses about the role of the workplace in alcohol use and misuse emerge from this model. H1) Occupational structure and workplace constraints-resources contribute independently to alcohol use and misuse. H2) The effect of workplace constraints-resources on alcohol use and misuse are moderated by the position of the agent in the occupational structure. H3) Agent personality, family, and social network outside work modulate the effects of workplace constraints-resources on alcohol use and misuse.
To me it means that what you do and where you do have an impact on your drinking, What level of responsability you have will change your drinking habits as will your personality, family and peer-pressure.
To be fair I can also find studies that suggest that white collar workers drink more then blue collar workers.
The point, once again, isn’t that person A or person B will drink more. It is that the Perryman study is a general study that lays out two variables to determine the amount of money a community might make by becoming wet. The problem is that there are a wider variety of variables that could lead to a different outcome. The point of listing all of the taxing entities that have been “clients” of this study is to show the extreme diversity of those communities with our community.
If there are people in this community who think they can make some money on Beer/wine or package liquor sales then let them provide a study, performed on our community, that shows the advantages of that change. If it is their desire, it should be their risk. I see no usefulness in the Perryman study when it comes to UP.
My apologies for not responding to your post. You must have slipped it in when I was responding to Gagree. It is an important point however. Lets look at another example that is less of a no brainer. Congress, when it passed health care reform, had original set up a tax on all plastic surgery as a way to generate income. Of course, the medical lobby, among others, had a cow. They started spreading there cash around and got it removed. What went into its place? A tax on tanning bed visits. Tanning salon owners don’t have a lobby. They are also looked on with some disdain because of a connection between sun exposure and cancer.
Just because you like the look of a plan to generate tax revenue doesn’t mean that everyone else is comfortable with it. Maybe people would be more comfortable with it if City Hall was calling for more revenue. Maybe someone telling residents that it would help lower property taxes would help. I haven’t heard either of those things being said by our elected officials.
Once again we have a group of people, namely the UP Merchants Association dangling the “extra revenue” carrot in front of everyone, expecting us to follow like donkeys. Not going to happen. If the UPMA wants to get this done then they are going to have to come up to me with something besides an irrelevant study and a clipboard with a petition on it.
The slippery slope argument is getting old.
If we allow alcohol sales, Sodom and Gomorrah? Really?
We already had prostitution on Fondren. We have borderline child abuse on the youth sports teams. Can’t you see how moving alcohol sales 1 block closer could alleviate these situations? Moms would be looser. Dads would chillax on the fields more.
City Hall could re-paint and re-letter and makeover all the parks and signs over and over again w/ the added tax revenue.
I could care less either way…I like the added tax revenue angle, but what restrictions would be placed on locations, etc.?
One last thing JT, for someone that harps on higher edumacation, work on yur speling!
The slippery slope argument never gets old. We are seeing it now with Obama and socialized medicine. When you are dealing with the free-wheeling anything goes crowd, or the big government statists you have to watch the slope constantly.
Appreciate your comment on my spelling. Another part of reading and writing is comprehension which you obviously fail to grasp. No where in my posts have I mentioned that moving from dry to wet will lead to Sodom and Gomorrah. I haven’t commented on what changing our status to wet will lead to. Neither have I “harps on higher edumacation”. I made a comment that educational levels of a community might be a variable that is ignored in the Perryman study. The only one who was tossing up higher education was @Flab/Gagree.
regarding the safety of selling all forms of alcohol in close proximity to Bradfield Elementary school.
Sales Tax Benefits: Your supposed sales tax benefit is an estimate and based on a study that I have already discussed. I fail to see how handing over “$300K” to the city without concomitant agreements to reduce taxes in other areas is a benefit. All it does is give the city more money to not get things right in the first place if you know what I am talking about.
Retail and Restaurant Benefits: Every restaurant and retail business in this city opened up with a complete understanding of the rules. These rules are not new and have not been “forced” on them. You are creating straw man with your argument.
Personal Privacy Benefits: Thanks for insulting the waiters and waitresses of our retail establishments. I am sure they appreciate your trust. People who have an issue with handing over their DL should carry their Club card with them. Another straw man.
Under Resources:
I can see that HP stats can carry some weight since they are a township similar in size and population. However, UP can’t claim some of the same facts that HP can. There is a least one instance of a citation given, in the last year, to a mom picking up her kids while in her cups. As Merritt has pointed out on this very blog, that the 2 martini lunch is kind of common at Sevy’s. Do I think that changing the law to allow the free flow of alcohol in UP is going to cause an increase in alcohol-related offenses? I don’t know.
My point is that everyone has bought into the system we have now and I need more reasons to change then what you are bringing to the table.
To me, this is an economic and free-market issue. It makes no sense to continue to support an archaic alcohol system with multiple tiers of distribution in place that only serves to increase costs to consumers and make middle-men rich. Why should businesses in UP have to compete with one or two hands tied behind their backs? This scheme only serves to make our businesses less competitive, less profitable, and the tax base in the city smaller FOR THE BENEFIT of the oligopolistic alcohol industry.
Look at what the alcohol distributors are trying to pull over in Congress with HR5034. They have a protected market (I believe six companies control 50% of the wine distribution in the United States) to allows them to make unwarranted profits, and then they plow a portion of those profits into relentless lobbying efforts to elected officials to pass laws that continue to protect their market. I’d love that business, too.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m generally pro-business, and I’m loathe to suggest that governments tax more in lieu of corporate profits, but the corporate profits here stink. They hurt our community, they make goods that people are going to purchase anyway be (i) more expensive, or (ii) purchased outside of city lines. Let’s end this stupid scheme and let the free market operate in UP.
As for businesses in UP competing with their hands tied they knew the rules when they set up their businesses.
AND WHAT THE HECK DOES A LIQUOR MONOPOLY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? You sound like my kid, trying to muddy the discussion with gobbledy-gook.
This sounds to me like its an issue of some retailers wanting to make some more money and they are twisting and turning trying to find reasons why the community should go along with them.
To answer your question about my connections to alcohol or retail whatever that is a no.
I’m fine with businesses purchasing from a middle-man, if that is their choice. There are plenty of valid business reasons to work through distributors. Archaic protectionist laws aren’t one of them. And yes, I’m fine with restaurants offering byob, if they think that maximizes profits. Let the free market work.
And, you are way, way off on your “different middle man” argument when it comes to restaurants. Our scheme makes local restaurants buy alcohol at retail. Other restaurants not subject to these laws get to buy from a wholesaler. Our city should eliminate the retailer in this chain, because there is no reason for them other than to suck up profits that would otherwise accrue to the restaurants to keep or pass on to customers.
Gobbley-gook? Did you just try to win your argument by calling me a kid? Really? You don’t see the relevance of yet another example of anti-free market laws that protect alcohol industry profits at the expense of customer prices and choice? It is the same playbook. I think that is a far more relevant point in this debate than listing dozens of other towns in a bazarre and elitest attempt to bluff UP residents into thinking the our alcohol laws are the one thing standing between us and Waxahachie.
The point of the gobbledy-gook remark was not that you are talking like a kid but you are throwing out pointless, irrelevant factoids to make yourself sound smart…And you call me an elitist.
You want free markets? lets open up the market to anyone who wants to sell any kind of alcohol. You want free markets? How about property rights. Lets let Huddleston do what he wants to with the Chase property.
After reading your last post I realize you know more about this then you let on. Are you one of the retailers or restaurant owners that will be the prime beneficiaries of this change?
The only people that are going to benefit from this change are the retailers and restaurant owners. There will be a little more money for the city to spend putting up more signs we don’t need. There will not be much change in price of the beer and wine that people buy because realistically we are only talking a couple Tom Thumbs.
What will change is the character of our city.
And the idea that moving to a wet system would “change the character of our city” … that’s an unbelievably absurd argument. One just has to look at our brethren south of Mockingbird to know that is just not true.
James Tucker for Head Quaker!!!
Leave a Reply