Welcome to the Louisville Restaurants Forum, a civil place for the intelligent discussion of the local restaurant scene and just about any other topic related to food and drink in and around Louisville.
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Robin Garr » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:06 am

This could get really ugly ... or maybe it already is. As I understand it, the rule about liquor retailers being at least 200 feet apart is based on the nearest "safe" route, crossing at crosswalks or traffic lights, not jaywalking across a highway.

State orders Liquor Barn in St. Matthews to close
Staff
Business First


Liquor Barn has been ordered to close its St. Matthews store because it's too close to a competitor, Beverage Warehouse.

The ruling from Kentucky Alcohol Beverage Control follows a four-year battle between the stores, WHAS-TV reported. The feud centered on a city ordinance requiring that liquor stores be at least 700 feet apart.

The order states that Liquor Barn must close this month. But an attorney for Liquor Barn said the retailer will appeal the decision.
User avatar
User

RonnieD

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1931

Joined

Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:09 pm

Location

The rolling acres of Henry County

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by RonnieD » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:29 am

It might get ugly, but I can't say I'd miss it.
Ronnie Dingman
Chef Consultant
The Farm
La Center, KY
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Robin Garr » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:34 am

For many years, the old Party Source was my go-to wine place, and when Anne Joseph was the wine geek here and David Schildknecht the guy in Northern Kentucky, it was amazing a wine-retail operation competitive with the nation's best. (Or its best outside NYC and maybe Washington, anyway.)

Quite frankly, the sale of the chain to the Lexington-based Liquor Barn was the first nail in the coffin. While it's still a huge box store, I just haven't see the same level of wine-geek knowledge or the same commitment to deliver unusual wines of good quality-price ratio since then.

I'm just glad we've got places like Old Town, The Wine Rack, Gemelli and The Wine Market around to more than fill the gap. Westport Village, too, although I've got some quibbles there.
User avatar
User

Steve P

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

4848

Joined

Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Steve P » Fri Jan 03, 2014 10:48 am

A couple of years ago a L.B. employee told me that the L.B. in St. Matts was actually a franchise deal of some sort and wasn't actually owned by L.B....Also L.B. is now a Canadian owned company...

In other L.B. news, they will be opening a new L.B next year at the intersection of Shelbyville Rd and English Station Rd. It's going into a new plaza that is being built. Other stores going in are Hobby Lobby and an as yet named "National Sporting Goods retailer"....which I assume to be either Academy Sports or Sports Authority.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/ ... ail-center
Stevie P...The Daddio of the Patio
User avatar
User

Mark R.

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

4369

Joined

Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:02 pm

Location

Anchorage, KY

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Mark R. » Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:41 pm

I really don't understand how this issue can just be coming to light now. You would think all of his legal wrangling would've taken place 4 years ago when LB applied for their liquor license. Through the entire public posting process and license application process, you would have thought that adequate investigation would've been done to either approve or deny the permit at that time. I do remember a discussion about the St. Matthews ordinance with the 700 foot issue and the fact that St. Matthew said it had to be counted by the closest walking route, which is down to the intersection, across and back which is over 700 feet. You would think at that time somebody should've brought up the 200 foot state requirement instead of waiting until now.
Written using Dragon NaturallySpeaking

"Life is short. Drink the good wine first"
User avatar
User

Jeff Cavanaugh

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1008

Joined

Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:49 am

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Jeff Cavanaugh » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:09 pm

Mark R. wrote:I really don't understand how this issue can just be coming to light now. You would think all of his legal wrangling would've taken place 4 years ago when LB applied for their liquor license. Through the entire public posting process and license application process, you would have thought that adequate investigation would've been done to either approve or deny the permit at that time. I do remember a discussion about the St. Matthews ordinance with the 700 foot issue and the fact that St. Matthew said it had to be counted by the closest walking route, which is down to the intersection, across and back which is over 700 feet. You would think at that time somebody should've brought up the 200 foot state requirement instead of waiting until now.


It sounds like it's been in litigation all this time. The license application was probably reviewed and approved under one of the standards and then BW sued challenging compliance under the other rule, and it's taken 4 years for the case to work its way through the courts. That's just a guess, though.
User avatar
User

Alan H

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

588

Joined

Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:37 pm

Location

Highlands

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Alan H » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:57 pm

Steve P wrote:A couple of years ago a L.B. employee told me that the L.B. in St. Matts was actually a franchise deal of some sort and wasn't actually owned by L.B....


We were in their during the holidays and there were signs posted everywhere about not honoring gift cards from L.B. because they were a franchise
Alan Hincks
Overtime Sports Bar and Grille

A fine beer may be judged with only one sip, but it's better to be thoroughly sure.
no avatar
User

Eric Hall

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

160

Joined

Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Eric Hall » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:22 pm

The St Matthews LB is still owned by the original lexington LB owner. The Canadians wouldn't buy it because of this pending legal case.

This case has been going on for years. I would imagine BW protested the initial application of the license and it is just now seeing a resolution pending appeal.

The statutes say that liquor stores must be at least 700 feet apart. The problem lies in how you measure 700 feet. If it is as the crow flies or nearest points of each building, LB is in violation and should never have been granted a license. If it is the most direct legal route that a pedestrian can travel from entrance to entrance, then LB wins.
no avatar
User

Ellen P

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

531

Joined

Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:44 pm

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Ellen P » Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:05 pm

Wasn't there a similar issue with kerns & Bambi bar? The walking distance calculated differently?
no avatar
User

Alison Hanover

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

676

Joined

Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:27 pm

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Alison Hanover » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:18 am

Could someone please enlighten me as to why liqeur stores have to be 700 feet apart? Is there a valid reason for this or is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.
Alison Hanover
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Robin Garr » Sat Jan 04, 2014 11:34 am

Alison Hanover wrote:... is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.

I'd say that's it, pretty much. I think two "public policy" issues are in play in this and in many alcoholic-beverage regs:

1. Those who would rather prohibit all alcohol but know they can't do that again remain keen, nevertheless, to make it as difficult as they can for people to buy booze. Limiting access is one easy way to do that.

2. It's also clearly anti-competitive, as we see in this case: It keeps competitors at a distance so each has, presumably, a protected market.

There's also a possible (3) ... the more complex the regs, the easier it is for regulators and inspectors to find opportunities to receive a "tip" when asked the fateful question, "How can we make this problem go away?" :mrgreen:
no avatar
User

Eric Hall

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

160

Joined

Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:23 pm

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Eric Hall » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:31 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
Alison Hanover wrote:... is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.

I'd say that's it, pretty much. I think two "public policy" issues are in play in this and in many alcoholic-beverage regs:

1. Those who would rather prohibit all alcohol but know they can't do that again remain keen, nevertheless, to make it as difficult as they can for people to buy booze. Limiting access is one easy way to do that.

2. It's also clearly anti-competitive, as we see in this case: It keeps competitors at a distance so each has, presumably, a protected market.

There's also a possible (3) ... the more complex the regs, the easier it is for regulators and inspectors to find opportunities to receive a "tip" when asked the fateful question, "How can we make this problem go away?" :mrgreen:


booze and alcohol sales will never be a totally "free" market. Too many tax dollars so the state and feds have to control every step of the process. An Amendment to the constitution gives the states the right to enact and enforce alcohol regulations as they see fit.

Rarely do laws pass the common sense test when it comes to alcohol and this is one of those. However, the law is still on the books and is enforced. The only one winning on this one is the lawyers who get to argue how to measure 700 feet. Liquor Barn won't be closing any time soon.
no avatar
User

Rob Coffey

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

607

Joined

Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:17 pm

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Rob Coffey » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:33 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
Alison Hanover wrote:... is it yet another case of someone sitting in an office making up stupid rules.

I'd say that's it, pretty much. I think two "public policy" issues are in play in this and in many alcoholic-beverage regs:

1. Those who would rather prohibit all alcohol but know they can't do that again remain keen, nevertheless, to make it as difficult as they can for people to buy booze. Limiting access is one easy way to do that.

2. It's also clearly anti-competitive, as we see in this case: It keeps competitors at a distance so each has, presumably, a protected market.

There's also a possible (3) ... the more complex the regs, the easier it is for regulators and inspectors to find opportunities to receive a "tip" when asked the fateful question, "How can we make this problem go away?" :mrgreen:


There is a number 4 related to number 3: The more complex the regs, the more likely that everyone is in violation of something, and it can be used in leverage on other issues. Its the "3 felonies a day" concept.
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Robin Garr » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:19 pm

Eric Hall wrote: An Amendment to the constitution gives the states the right to enact and enforce alcohol regulations as they see fit.

A minor point (and no, I am not a lawyer), but the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition) gives the states control over "the transportation or importation" of alcoholic beverages into that state. Other laws, ranging from age limits and the time and day of legal sales to, well, the distance between liquor stores, fall under state laws but aren't constitutionally mandated. And still more regs - particularly taxation, label language, disclaimers and more, belong to the federales.

Here's all that the Constitution says:

The 21st Amendment wrote:Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
User avatar
User

Steve A

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

505

Joined

Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:13 am

Location

turn left

Re: State trying to force St Matthews Liquor Barn to close

by Steve A » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:52 pm

What I find truly ironic is if you mosey farther down Shelbyville, there are three bars on one side and two on the other that are within 400 feet of each other. So I guess bars in close proximity, good, package sales in close proximity, bad.

Say, anybody interested in taking a road trip to Colorado? :mrgreen:
"It ain't a matter of pork 'n beans that's gonna justify your soul
Just don't try to lay no boogie woogie on the king of rock and roll."
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign