I’ve just received the latest update on the Brooks Amendment. So here’s the scoop.
My own speculation was correct in that the amendment applies to retailers that have an “off-premises” only license, while most upscale grocery stores have “on and off-premises” licenses. It would not apply to any grocery store that has an on/off-premises license for the purposes of conducting tastings. Places like Whole Foods and and Piggly Wiggly are already in good shape.
The less-than-ideal aspect of this is that “normal” grocery stores probably don’t currently have on/off-premises licenses; most of them likely have off-premises only. That’s going to include Publixes, Winn-Dixies, Food Worlds, etc.
The good news is that the on/off-premises license does not cost any more than off-premises only licenses. There is a little bit of red tape involved in that any grocery store with an off-premises only license wanting to sell >6% beer would have to go to local authorities and change its license to on/off premises, but that change would not cost them any money. It would purely be a matter of will to deal with a little bureaucracy.
In contrast, c-stores not interested in selling higher alcohol craft beer wouldn’t bother with the red tape. There is also a space requirement to conduct tastings that would not be easy for a c-store to meet, but no grocery store would have any trouble with it. I don’t have the gritty details of what the space requirements are, so questions in comments would be futile. I’ve simply been told some c-stores might be able to qualify if they really want to sell a full line-up of craft beer. That’s something that will have to be discussed with local authorities on an individual basis. There is nothing that automatically prevents any/all c-stores from obtaining the necessary license.
Yes, that might pose an unfortunate obstacle for some c-stores wanting to sell higher alcohol craft beer, and we definitely wish that wasn’t the compromise needed to get our bill passed, but the reality is that it is necessary.
We already have one adamant opponent in Hank Erwin who is on the cusp of single-handedly killing our bill. As long as he is the only zealous opponent, we still have a chance at passing. If we don’t accept the Brooks Amendment, then Ben Brooks will become another zealous opponent, and two such opponents would be an almost certain death sentence for our bill.
Not only does the Brooks Amendment secure Ben Brooks’ support for our bill, it’s very possible it might end Hank Erwin’s crusade to filibuster our bill. Sen. Brooks was scheduled to meet with Sen. Erwin this afternoon to discuss our bill and the effect of his amendment. Furthermore, our lobbyist will be discussing the issue with Sen. Erwin tomorrow morning. Because the amendment prevents higher alcohol beer from being sold in the primary class of retailers where most underage drinkers buy beer, it’s possible that it will convince Erwin to end his filibuster. No guarantees, mind you, but it’s our best shot at this point. Otherwise our only chance is waiting for a moment when Erwin is not in the chamber.
So the question becomes: do we want to pass a bill that requires many grocery stores to endure a little red tape to change their type of license (at no additional cost) in order to sell >6% beer, or do we want to pass no bill at all, and continue to have to drive to Georgia, Tennessee, or Florida to buy our beer? Because that is the choice we face.
I know a few people out there are completely opposed to compromise, but when you refuse to compromise, you don’t end up getting the platonic ideal of what you want; you get nothing at all. Free The Hops would rather have a bill that causes a few grocery stores a bureaucratic inconvenience than have no bill pass at all.
So there you go. Depending on how the conversation goes in the morning, we might be able to get our bill passed tomorrow. If this amendment does not convince Erwin to abandon his intent to filibuster, then things are a little more complicated but success is still within our grasp. Just watch.
43 Comments
It’s never easy in this backwoods state.
You said it, Mr. Kline.
I am not a fan of this compromise at all but… I say do what you have to do to get the beer in the state then maybe look to the future for loosening some of the restrictions. Once the uneducated in the legislature see that there aren’t many wild gangs of 15 years old running the streets chugging 9% abv beer maybe they will change their tune
)
I’m against compromise, we do it to much in this country already. Because usually it isn’t compromise just bending over. Being left out of Publix is a HUGE deal, as publix is a big growing chain.
Anyway this is a hard compromise to swallow, but we have to. I hope Brooks and Erwin don’t get re elected.
If passing it w/ amendment in tow means I don’t have to drive to GA for the goods, awesome. I will gladly drive the Ham from T-town and spend 100 bucks on beer a month until Brunos, Publix, and Food World realize what they’re missing out on. Plus, like you said dumblonde, there is always later.
Well if it does pass it’s just a matter of going to your local grocery store manager and requesting he get the beer and if enough customers of that store ask then the store will change its license
Personally even if we are restricted to only buing >6% beer at a package store I would be fine with that as a first step. Just get the ability for us to buy the beer then we can work on expanding where we can buy it.
I know Hank Erwin and have for a long time. He is not somebody who will compromise. He thinks this is all part of ‘fighting the good fight’ and he is very proud of his filibustering ways when it comes to gambling and alcohol. You heard him yourself (if you listened to the senate audio) say that he wants this whole state dry. IMO, our best chance is him stepping out to the mens room. Seriously.
Sorry to disagree but I am NOT OK with it being restricted to only package stores, especially if that means ABC stores only. Have you ever tried to find an unusual liquor in Alabama? It can’t be done. If the >6% abv was only available at the ABC store, frankly… I see myself still driving to GA to get what I want.
IMHO we need to be sure there is some avenue for specialty beer stores to open up (just like the wine stores we currently have).
If I came across as supporting sales only in ABC stores then I apologize. I agree that would not be acceptable but by allowing only in independent package stores you still have the market dictating what will be sold. I know a couple of package stores here in Birmingham that already have plans in place to significantly expand for the >6% beers once they are available for sale here.
ETA: What I hope we can get here is like this beer store I went to in Asheville, NC. That place was amazing!! It had isles & isles of the big beers (plenty of 12 ouncers too). It looked just like a fancy wine store… only it was all beer. There wasn’t a Bud or Miller Lite in site ::swoon::
I am ok with the compromise. I think once we get this passed, even if it is restricted to certain stores, it will have the effect of having our foot in the door. I think a lot of stores that cater to those who like the gourmet beers would get the required license to have those beers in their stores.
It would be easier to later change a licensing law later on, then try to pass this law.
Just my 2 cents.
I want to start out by saying that I want to see this bill passed as it was originally introduced. However, I do understand that sometimes compromise is needed in order to satisfy the “Greater Good”! With that being said, let me see if I understand this well intended amendment…the amendment would restrict the sale of gourmet beer (GB) in convenience store which carry off-premise licenses. Does this mean that GB could only be purchased from retailers that carry an on-premise license. However, if it costs nothing for an off-premise retailer to include an on-premise license, will this amendment change the ABC law governing on-premise sales by explicitly excluding all c-stores?
I look forward to seeing what happens in the Senate tomorrow and hopefully this bill will get passed.
As I understand it (which doesn’t mean much necessarily), there are two types of beer licenses: (1) off-premises and (2) off and on premises.
The off-premises is for stores. The off and on premises is for bars, restaurants, and stores that want to have tastings n’ stuff. They cost the same. Some grocery stores have just an off and some off the “off and on.” The idea, as I understand it, is that all grocery stores and many big wine stores would have no problem renewing their license as an “off and on.” Some c-stores, however, won’t be able to convince the ABC that their little store has a need for a tasting license.
There are 3, not 2. On, Off, or On-and-Off. Restaurants just have the On. Except a place like Diplomat Deli, which has the On-and-Off. The on-premises only is actually a Restaurant Liquor license, which covers, wine, beer, and liquor.
Oh. My understanding has expanded.
Let it pass. Once it does, we can always work to change it. It doesn’t have to be perfect the first time through. That’s part of the reason we have the legislative process, to change existing laws. Make it part of the future effort to lift the container size restriction so I can buy my ‘Arrogant Bastard’ 22oz.
Keep him tied up? Not exactly sure what you’re suggesting, but that doesn’t sound legal. Unless it’s consentual
Oops.. meant to reply to 14.
Can Sullivan keep Erwin tied up in the meeting this morning long enough for the 10:00 Senate session to begin without him?
I know that beer is one of the largest profit margins for grocerie stores. I would bet that it would be no time at all before all of the big chains got the new licence and were selling >6%.
I currently live in a state where high ABV beer is available. Not a single c-store in my area carries it. Just our awesome party store & high end grocers.
Also, who mostly drinks this stuff—educated professionals w/ disposable income. Hmm, you’d think a state would pass a bill that would allow this just for economy sakes.
To be fair to our fair state, almost 70% of the voting Senate approved the BIR – a procedural step required to bring the bill up for a vote. We were just held up by one senator’s filibuster.
I am just so proud that the efforts have gotten the bill so far this time! I am not concerned if he corner Chevron will not carry high gravity beer. I do not go to the gas station for selection!! Now I will have to slightly plan if I need to go by a Piggly Wiggly or Whole Foods, but it just isn’t the end of the world.
Besides, I am pretty confident that Publix stores will jump on the opportunity to broaden their sales and attract more customers. Unlike Bruno’s and Food world and Winn-Dixie, they are profitable and seem to know what works.
Gunner (#13) brings up an interesting point. Aren’t there current legislative efforts to increase container sizes in the state, as well? What’s happening in that arena?
The container size issue is an agenda item for FTH, but we’re tackling one thing at a time.
Just a small clarification for myself and others here. While this bill does not address the container size restriction, am I correct in that many of the bomber only beers out there can be purchased in kegs from distributors, while we may not see some distributors move into the area if the majority of their beers can only be sold in kegs, it may be enough to get some of them interested. Stone for instance 6 packs the Ruination, Oaked Arrogant Bastard, IPA, and Pale ales. That is 4 of their beers on store shelves and the rest could be in kegs at places like J Clyde. That could be enough to get them into town, Not to mention many others that do have a presence here already but have limited products out, Terrapin, Rogue, Abita, and many others all will have sudden increased markets for their kegs.
I whole heartedly agree that doing this is stages is the way to go, and maybe in the next round on the container issue the law can be tweaked to allow beer stores like the high end wine retailers in B Ham.
Just a side note here, many places have crazy beer laws, For instance I used to live in Philadelphia and in Penn you can only buy beer to go home with from liquor stores, distributors, OR from restaurants and bars. Thats right you cant buy a six pack at the publix BUT if I am in the bar and wasted I can buy a half case of whatever to go home with (but you do have to pay the full bar price) which is why you see so many people carrying half cases of PBR on the streets at 2 am on the weekend. Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase “one for the road.”
I hate to freak everyone out, but because the Senate is amending a House bill – won’t we have to go back through the house? Also, will that be back through committee or straight to the floor?
Concurring with an amendment is MUCH easier and faster than passing a bill. It can happen same day, just a quick up or down vote, no BIR, no calendars, etc. No big deal.
I am thrilled to see this news! I am currently living in the wonderful state of SC and will be moving back to AL next week. I was about to spend a good bit of $$ on my favorite Craft & Belgium beers, looks like this might not need to happen!
Can I have clarification. Will restaurants be able to carry and sell these beers? Do we have any knowledge of draft/bottle sizes?
Restaurants and bars will be able to sell them, yes. No limit on draft size. Bottle size will still be limited at 16 oz, for now.
Restaurants will be able to sell the beers and bottle size will be limited to the current maximum of 16oz. I’m not aware of any draft size limits but if I’m wrong on that someone can correct me.
Uh, JB, not to be a pessimist, but I would definitely still stock up before coming here. Don’t count on anything at this point.
Yeah I know
I’ll go get my Piraat, Chouffe and my other favorite IPA’s before coming home… oh well!
Hey, here is a question regarding the container size. I am in Mobile and have seen in north Baldwin Co. 24oz Bud. product cans. I have also seen them in whatever county Jax. State is in. Any info about that?
They’re doing it illegally then.
Alabama law §28-3A-23 states:
“All beer, except draft or keg beer, sold by retailers must be sold or dispensed in bottles, cans or other containers not to exceed one pint or 16 ounces.”
No, local laws take precedence over state laws on the subject of alcohol. That’s how some counties can be dry even though alcohol is legal statewide. And a few counties allow larger containers. Only 4 or 5, and they’re all rural. So no craft 22 oz bottles, just macro lager quarts and the like.
Could you tell me what part of state law provides for local laws to take precedence over state laws when it comes to alcohol? I have a difficult time believing that a state which has striven to keep power at in Montgomery would allow that kind of freedom at the local level.
Also that isn’t the reason that municipalities can be wet or dry. The ability to choose that on the local level was provided in the Alabama code, title 28, chapter 2 for counties and 2a for municipalities.
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/21502.htm
By local law, I mean local law that is passed by the State Legislature. Look at Title 45 of the Code. One example of a law allowing larger containers is http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/45-3-20.htm
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
You can buy 32 oz beers in Macon County. However, their selection is limited to Bud, Miller High Life & Colt 45.
Get it in the state and worry about C stores later. For that matter, when was the last time you saw a C-store carry all (or any)of the craft beers that are already available in the state? Even when legal, you will not see many of these beers in small stores. They just don’t have the space and have to dedicate what space they have to what will turn over.
is there not a way to make sure a certain senator is not in chambers one day?