Tallarita Submits Bill To Repeal ‘Archaic’ Sunday Liquor Ban
by Hugh McQuaid | Jan 12, 2011 6:00am
(14) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, State Budget, State Capitol
A bill to repeal the longstanding ban on Sunday alcohol sales is back.
The bill submitted by Rep. Kathy Tallarita, D-Enfield, has some bi-partisan support, but faces opposition from organizations representing package stores who say it would cost them money and could kill jobs.
Connecticut remains the only state in New England and one of only 14 states in the nation that continue to enforce Sunday bans on liquor sales, according to a 2009 report by Program Review and Investigations Committee.
“It’s an archaic law that’s been on the books for a long, long time,” Tallarita said Monday. “I think it’s been on there since prohibition.”
Tallarita said allowing the sales would be a revenue generator for the state. The legislative report estimated that Connecticut loses between $7 million and $8 million in additional revenue as a result of the Sunday ban.
“That’s money that is currently being spent just over the borders.” Tallarita said.
Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, also supports the bill. Kissel was co-chair of Program Review and Investigations Committee where a similar bill failed to pass last year after it failed to come up for a vote.
“When we’re looking at huge projected deficits, that may be a drop in the bucket but we’re going to need every drop to fill that bucket,” Kissel said Monday of the estimated revenue the bill would generate.
But according to Carroll J. Hughes, the lobbyist for the Connecticut Package Stores Association (CPSA), giving liquor stores the option to open an extra day would hurt small mom and pop liquor stores who compete with large grocery stores and other big box chains that sell alcohol. If the law passed, Connecticut could expect to lose 300 liquor stores and 500 jobs, Hughes said.
“Unless they have a buy-more drink-more plan, sales are not going to increase,” he said, adding that sales in Massachusetts did not go up after that state repealed its ban.
And the legislative report confirmed that Massachusetts did not see a bump in sales following the repeal of its ban but offered some mitigating factors which it said could have dampened the effect of the repeal.
“Prior to lifting the Sunday ban, Massachusetts allowed Sunday sales during the holiday season, between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, and since 1990, also allows stores within 10 miles of the New Hampshire and Vermont borders to be open on Sundays year round,” the report read.
In a December letter to then Gov.-elect Dannel Malloy, the CPSA estimated that an additional day of operation would cost even the smallest of package stores an additional $12,000 to $14,000 annually in labor and utilities expenses.
Kissel said the law would not mandate package stores to be open every day.
“No one’s making any package stores stay open but we want to give them the option especially for those that want to be competitive in border communities,” he said.
He likened the option to barbershops and hairdressers, businesses that typically open six days a week.
“If you go to a hair dresser or a barbershop a lot of times they’re closed on Mondays because that’s just a slow business day. So they’re working six days a week and make it work” he said. “I don’t understand why if package stores had an option, to be open on Sunday they couldn’t either decide not to or, if they want to, be open on that day and be closed on a Monday.”
Tags: legislature, alcohol ban, budget deficit
(14) Comments
posted by: hawkeye | January 12, 2011 12:32pm
Alcoholics certainly plan ahead, and already purchase their Sunday booze during the week. So why open the package stores on Sunday? It only give more available time for criminals to hold up these package stores.
Give us a break!
posted by: THREEFIFTHS | January 12, 2011 3:36pm
It was the Colony of Connecticut that drafted the “Blue Laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Laws_(Connecticut)
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F30D17FB3A5911738DDDAA0894D8415B8585F0D3
posted by: dhaseltine | January 12, 2011 3:57pm
Hawkeye, that’s just asinine. Your belief that allowing package stores to be open on Sundays would result in more robberies is unsubstantiated fear-mongering.
It’s worth noting that no other business is forced to be closed one day a week in order to avoid robberies. What foolishness.
The law is religious in origin, and it serves no secular purpose whatsoever, so it should be repealed.
posted by: SWConnecticut | January 12, 2011 4:05pm
The irony is that #1) bars and restaurants are free to sell alcoholic beverages on Sundays, but liquor stores cannot operate and #2) the state should be looking at the contribution to tax revenues. Right now, there is no tax revenue for liquor sales on Sundays, so the data from Massachusetts is not comparable. As Tallarita, the law would not require package stores to be open on Sunday if they don’t want to be, and they can close on a day that might be slower if they wish.
posted by: ... | January 12, 2011 4:23pm
I would like to hear both sides first with exact details, but it seems like a smart move.
Over the past several decades, hours have shifted for a lot of businesses to work on Sundays or late at night.
We also see a lot of liquor stores set up near or next to grocery stores. Grocery stores don’t sell much in terms of alcohol and liquor store owners know it. The liquor stores also sell beer, but they realize a majority of their shoppers want wine and hard liquor.
It is fair to mention owners can still control their hours. They don’t need to open on Sunday’s if they wish not too, and can limit their hours.
The stores must also consider the fact that without the sales, people go to bars/restaurants to instead. They are already loosing out on sales to other businesses. Increasing the competition and availability will be a long term plus for the owners, and the alcohol consumers of CT.
I expect it will pass with limited objection, if any. More power and choice to business will be supported by Republicans, & Democrats will support free choice & variety for the individual.
Lastly, increased sales and revenue, which can put those few drops in the deficit bucket, is the final benefit that both can agree on.
posted by: Hebee | January 12, 2011 6:15pm
The last time I checked, the Legislature didn’t guarantee anyone else’s day off. It is a stupid law that has nothing to do with religion or alcohol abuse. A tiny group of businesses, with a paid lobbyist, has managed to get a legislated, competition free day off for years. Let’s stop the foolishness, repeal the law (with as little moral rhetoric as possible) and move on with the rest of the 21st Century. The 160 cry babies can still take their day off. Only now (just like all other Connecticut Business) they can wonder if their competitor is home watching football too.
posted by: hawkeye | January 12, 2011 6:29pm
dhaseltine: Sunday liquor sales, won’t diminish DWI violations, either.
Why do you want to kave package stores open on Sunday, when package store owner’s do not want it?
posted by: ... | January 12, 2011 9:36pm
I wish the CPSA’s website was up so I could know how many package stores they actually represent and if all of them actually are uniformly against it. Ask around if your package store owners are for or against it, or if they are even a member of CPSA.
posted by: johnnyb | January 12, 2011 11:42pm
Package stores should be able to open on Sundays, it’s 2011. If the owner doesn’t want to open they don’t have to it is as simple as that.This State loses business to border States and it has to stop.
posted by: William Jenkins | January 13, 2011 12:43am
A bad idea that ought not to pass. CT liquor stores are severely restricted as to what they are allowed to sell. Until those restrictions are done away with, it’s ridiculous to allow Sunday sales.
posted by: Mansfield1 | January 13, 2011 11:50am
A little competition would be useful to drop prices for consumers. Just note the price difference between CT stores and stores across the border in Mass or RI. Higher prices caused by legislation is a tax as sure as if the dollars flowed through Hartford.
posted by: hawkeye | January 13, 2011 12:09pm
Gov. Dannel Malloy wants the Sunday liquor store openings, for the taxes it will derive.
It appears tha Malloy will pursue taxing everything in sight! We are already the highest taxed state in the country, but you can expect super-high-taxation, under Malloy, “as he will accomodate his thirsty, tax and spend Democratic General Assembly to the hilt!”
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | January 13, 2011 4:40pm
The Tallarita’s used to own (any may still own the building) of State Line Liquor in CT which is feet from the Mass line.
This is not the first time a Tallarita brought this issue up.
It’s also not the firs time Enfield merchants got behind a repeal of the Blue Laws for their benenfit in defiance of their trade association.
from the Courant
http://tinyurl.com/4849v8w
ENFIELD—— Among the bottles of Johnnie Walker Black and Jose Cuervo tequilla are signs of success at the State Line Package Store.
That’s where owner Lou Tallarita displays the notices of instant lottery winners, proudly proclaiming that a $500 winner and a $5,000 winner were sold in the store.
The store borrows its name from its location—it’s only a few hundred feet from the Massachusetts border on Route 5.
Tallarita said he gets 60 to 75 percent of his customers from Massachusetts, probably more when the Connecticut Lotto has a big jackpot.
posted by: ... | January 13, 2011 5:32pm
Who you are quoting in your last sentence hawkeye? Nonetheless, that is exactly the point and its in the article itself if you read.
“The legislative report estimated that Connecticut loses between $7 million and $8 million in additional revenue as a result of the Sunday ban.”
But there are half a dozen other reasons argued myself, other people who have commented, and representatives, as to why ridding the Blue Laws is a smart idea.
Finally, to call his policy “tax & spend Democratic…” is simply applying baseless rhetoric from the national level to state level. You know very well his solutions advocated thus far have been cuts, as well as taxes, and potentially borrowing. The only spending proposed thus far is to keep our state afloat and running properly.