The answer lies squarely on the shoulders of my representative on the Wicomico County Council. In an earlier discussion of whether to move the question of abolishing the Wicomico County Liquor Control Board to a referendum, Councilwoman Gail Bartkovich (R-3) voted with the Democrat minority of Sheree Sample-Hughes (D-1), Bill McCain (D), and Dave MacLeod (D-4) to keep the question off of the November ballot.
What is Mrs. Bartkovich's rationale for wanting to keep the state in the retail and distribution business?
Today we may learn more as the question again comes before a council work session. The arguments in favor of maintaining a state sponsored business run the gamut from specious to merely being red herrings.
Proponents of this practice of days gone by claim that abolishing dispensaries would "put a liquor store on every corner". Not according to the county's Liquor Licensing Board, which would have to approve EVERY license and location.
Using public funds for a paid political ad, the Wicomico County Liquor Control Board try to persuade citizens that children will be buying liquor if the dispensary system is ended. Children have already been caught buying liquor at the LCB's dispensaries. By ending the current antediluvian system, the Liquor Licensing Board will finally be able to punish offenders. Under the current system the LCB faces no substantial penalties, other than possible public embarrassment, when they sell booze to our children. Trust me, the loss of an expensive licensing fee - plus the lost revenue of losing your license - is a pretty strong incentive for a private business to stay on the straight and narrow.
While traveling up the Bay today, I'll be waiting to see how the council votes. The questions are fairly simple. Who will do the most efficient job distributing and retailing liquor in Wicomico County - a state appointed bureaucracy or private enterprise? Who will do the best job in policing liquor distribution within the county - the Liquor Licensing Board, who has never been tainted by scandal, OR the LCB, who has a proven history of insider dealing, refuses to release public records until threatened with legal action, and who has failed in one of its core missions (refusing to sell to minors) and is not subject to sanction by the Liquor Licensing Board?
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
What is Mrs. Bartkovich's rationale for wanting to keep the state in the retail and distribution business?
Today we may learn more as the question again comes before a council work session. The arguments in favor of maintaining a state sponsored business run the gamut from specious to merely being red herrings.
Proponents of this practice of days gone by claim that abolishing dispensaries would "put a liquor store on every corner". Not according to the county's Liquor Licensing Board, which would have to approve EVERY license and location.
Using public funds for a paid political ad, the Wicomico County Liquor Control Board try to persuade citizens that children will be buying liquor if the dispensary system is ended. Children have already been caught buying liquor at the LCB's dispensaries. By ending the current antediluvian system, the Liquor Licensing Board will finally be able to punish offenders. Under the current system the LCB faces no substantial penalties, other than possible public embarrassment, when they sell booze to our children. Trust me, the loss of an expensive licensing fee - plus the lost revenue of losing your license - is a pretty strong incentive for a private business to stay on the straight and narrow.
While traveling up the Bay today, I'll be waiting to see how the council votes. The questions are fairly simple. Who will do the most efficient job distributing and retailing liquor in Wicomico County - a state appointed bureaucracy or private enterprise? Who will do the best job in policing liquor distribution within the county - the Liquor Licensing Board, who has never been tainted by scandal, OR the LCB, who has a proven history of insider dealing, refuses to release public records until threatened with legal action, and who has failed in one of its core missions (refusing to sell to minors) and is not subject to sanction by the Liquor Licensing Board?
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Powered by ScribeFire.
3 comments:
Good, lets get it to referendum. The sooner they realize the citizens aren't in favor of county run liquors however doesn't guarantee that action will be taken. It's a start though.
Totally agree with your observation. No argument that the LCB has pled holds water. In fact, it would make one wonder, just why an appointed board would want to fight this issue. No good reason unless someone is benefiting from the business. Let's hope that isn't the case.
I agree with your observations on this GA. It sure is time that we the voters in this county get our chance to close down the LCB and its questionable operations.
A. Goetz
Post a Comment