This got a little chuckle from me... HOW DO I VOTE?!



  • (Click for embiggening)

    (Also vote Yes. I'd say, in general, vote Yes on anything the Fire and Police unions oppose. But especially this issue.)



  •  I don't get it. Why not click the banners and find out?



  • For those of us who don't know WTF you're giggling at, would 1183 be this?

    Initiative 1183, a ballot measure that will appear on the November 2011 statewide ballot, will privatize the distribution and sale of liquor in Washington state, provide hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues to state and local governments, and benefit Washington consumers, taxpayers and businesses — while strengthening regulations governing the sale of liquor. It also updates some laws regulating the wholesale distribution of wine.

    Or is it this?
    One giant corporation is attempting to take over the state's liquor system in order to make money, completely disregarding last year's NO vote that over 1 million Washingtonians cast against liquor privatization measures. Their goal? Big corporate profits that jeopardize our public safety and put our communities at risk.
    One presumes they're talking about the same thing since it involves politics.

    Or is it something else that applies to only one state?



  • Seems like a reasonable measure, except for this bit (pdf), "Require that a retail store must have ten thousand square feet or more of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure in order to get a license to sell liquor, with limited exceptions."

    I smell the influence of the big retail money behind the initiative on that one, trying to limit competition. I'll bet few (if any) of the current state run stores have 10,000 square feet of retail space. Also, since beer and wine distributors are against it, you can be sure that they don't want the competition.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Seems like a reasonable measure, except for this bit (pdf), "Require that a retail store must have ten thousand square feet or more of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure in order to get a license to sell liquor, with limited exceptions."

    I don't think that's as bad as it sounds. Of course the main pusher on the "yes" side is Costco, but those rules wouldn't limit sales to only Costco-- pretty much any grocery store applies. What they're trying to do is exclude convenience stores and espresso carts and tiny things like that. (Note: this is one of the lies from the "No" side, they keep saying over and over that if this bill passes you'll be able to get booze at any gas station or convenience store.)

    @boomzilla said:

    I smell the influence of the big retail money behind the initiative on that one, trying to limit competition. I'll bet few (if any) of the current state run stores have 10,000 square feet of retail space.

    That's one of the exceptions, IIRC.

    @boomzilla said:

    Also, since beer and wine distributors are against it, you can be sure that they don't want the competition.

    Right now they have a fucking monopoly, and liquor prices are much, much higher due to that.

    Plus, ignoring the whole "who is pushing the bill" angle, think about this, "what would an ideal government do?" angle. I think the ideal government would not have a government-run monopoly on a particular class of products. That's something a horrible commie government, like Serguey's, would do. So that settles it for me.

    Oh and BTW, the "No" vote was due to foul play. In fact, the liquor distributors intentionally introduced a competing Initiative with similar wording (but which actually changed virtually nothing) to run against what I-1183 was named before (I can't remember). Faced with two Initiative that on the surface looked identical, voters got confused and voted "No" by default, defeating both. So while it's technically true that I-1183 was defeated before, this is the first time it's actually gotten a fair run.

    Besides, this is Seattle. Voters voted to extend the monorail system in Seattle, FIVE TIMES. (And voted down building the new stadiums more than once.) Seattle just kept running the same vote over and over until they got the results they wanted. Politics are "flexible" here.

    And now I'm breaking my own rules by being serious on a joke forum, oh noes.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Seems like a reasonable measure, except for this bit (pdf), "Require that a retail store must have ten thousand square feet or more of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure in order to get a license to sell liquor, with limited exceptions."

    I don't think that's as bad as it sounds.

     

    I don't think the small shops dedicated to booze measure 33×33metres, which is quite a lot in my head, but maybe they all have an extensive In The Back.

    Fuck what do I know about retailing. I hate clients!



  • Pennsylvania is going through a very similar debate over the privatization of alcohol sales. If I understand correctly though, the majority of Pennsylvanians support it. Pretty much the only ones opposed are the chumps who are employed by the government to push the overpriced beverages. Oh, those and the shady remains of the previous governor's mafia. Oh, and a couple of communists who think it's a great idea if the government controlled all sorts of commodities because it makes money for the government and the government needs money in difficult economic times. (Unlike tax-paying retailers, I guess.)

    Fortunately, we finally have a Republican governor back in office.



  • @Xyro said:

    Pennsylvania is going through a very similar debate over the privatization of alcohol sales.
     

    I did some work for a while in Pennsylvania - that state has some strange commerce and taxation rules.  The alcohol sales are one, of course.  The others include things like you can't buy a half-dozen eggs - you have to buy at least 8.  Also, cities often have this thing called "the occupational privilege tax."  Seriously, WTF is up with the name? (It turns out that tax pays for local emergency services, so, rhetorically, why not call it "emergency services tax"?)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    (Also vote Yes. I'd say, in general, vote Yes on anything the Fire and Police unions oppose. But especially this issue.)

    Rumor is whatever you do up there is coming down south to Oregon, so how [i]you[/i] vote is going to affect [i]my[/i] life. Just keep that in mind!!



  • @dhromed said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Seems like a reasonable measure, except for this bit (pdf), "Require that a retail store must have ten thousand square feet or more of fully enclosed retail space within a single structure in order to get a license to sell liquor, with limited exceptions."

    I don't think that's as bad as it sounds.

     

    I don't think the small shops dedicated to booze measure 33×33metres, which is quite a lot in my head, but maybe they all have an extensive In The Back.

    Fuck what do I know about retailing. I hate clients!

     

    The state has to sell the existing stores, which are a lot smaller than 10,000 sq ft and are grandfathered in, allowing them to continue sales in those locations. The size constraint was to keep 7-11's from selling hard liquor.

    The funny (sorry?) thing is that the state of Washington is $1.2 billion in the hole this year and these changes would provide and estimated additional revenue of $250 million or so dollar over the next five years.

    What I want to know is where the firemen and teachers got $12 million dollars to fight against the measure, since they are the ones who are always being said to be against it. I can understand big businesses like Costco invest $23 million in trying to get it passed since it impacts their bottom line. But the same must be true for those fighting against it since $12 million is quite a chunk of change to drop on this. Imagine how many alcohol education classes or training seminars could be put on for that.

    Bah, that's me being cynical again. :P

    BTW, the measure did pass, but that probably means next year someone will pay lots of money to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn this one. And I thought New York politics were messed up. They set a whole new standard of "WTF is up with the political system" here on the West Coast.



  • @sabbott64 said:

    BTW, the measure did pass, but that probably means next year someone will pay lots of money to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn this one. And I thought New York politics were messed up. They set a whole new standard of "WTF is up with the political system" here on the West Coast.

    Hey at least our Initiatives have to justify themselves financially. We're not the disaster area that is California's Initiative system.

    And frankly, I love the Initiative system. It's a lot better for expressing the will of the people than relying on thugged-up fat-cat politicians... you just need 20k signatures from granola-munching hippies, and bam, you're in.



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    @sabbott64 said:
    BTW, the measure did pass, but that probably means next year someone will pay lots of money to get an initiative on the ballot to overturn this one. And I thought New York politics were messed up. They set a whole new standard of "WTF is up with the political system" here on the West Coast.

    Hey at least our Initiatives have to justify themselves financially. We're not the disaster area that is California's Initiative system.

    And frankly, I love the Initiative system. It's a lot better for expressing the will of the people than relying on thugged-up fat-cat politicians... you just need 20k signatures from granola-munching hippies, and bam, you're in.

    Agreed. It does make it a lot easier to say "I told you so" when people vote yes for something stupid.

    The initiative system is interesting, and it makes going to the store an adventure during signature gathering time. You never know what reason the scary guy with the clipboard is going to ask you to sign an petition.

    "We're trying to get enough signatures to require mandatory anal probing as part of getting a drivers license. It's the best way to figure out who the biggest assholes are before they get on the road."

    (Just wait, it'll happen. I guarantee it. :) )



  • @sabbott64 said:

    "We're trying to get enough signatures to require mandatory anal probing as
    part of getting a drivers license. It's the best way to figure out who the
    biggest assholes are before they get on the road."

    Do you have a newsletter?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.