urbanMSP

For something that's been so contentious for so long, that's a pretty significant vote margin, no?

Conference Committee still necessary, no? I don't think the differences between the House bill are too major though.

I'm not clear on this either. Popular consensus seems to be that the two bills call for (slightly) different opening times. If you're the author of the Senate bill though, why not just take up the House language, to avoid conference altogether? That part I don't get...unless they're intentionally forcing the bill into conference committee...though I'm not smart enough to know why

Conference Committee still necessary, no? I don't think the differences between the House bill are too major though.

I'm not clear on this either. Popular consensus seems to be that the two bills call for (slightly) different opening times. If you're the author of the Senate bill though, why not just take up the House language, to avoid conference altogether? That part I don't get...unless they're intentionally forcing the bill into conference committee...though I'm not smart enough to know why

It was an amendment in committee, not part of an original bill introduced in the Senate. I'm guessing they wanted to make sure that a single 8-hour shift was enough to cover Sunday, including pre-open and post-close work. Hopefully the House consents to the Senate language without requiring conference, particularly given how much certain legislators complain about spending time on this issue.

I saw on Twitter than Loon (House author) is inclined to accept the Senate bill (11-6 hours), so it appears likely that we have a law. Now for Dayton to sign it (or not, in which case it becomes law in 3 days).

I'm gonna put it in my calendar to support my local store on Sunday July 2, just to put my money where my mouth/Twitter is

Curious how this will all play out now. I didn't feel strongly enough to write my legislators (Wagenis and Torres Ray), but worry about the impact on my own city's municipal liquor stores, which are a nice revenue stream for parks, etc. I hate the idea of damaging yet another revenue stream of local government just to make buying liquor more convenient.

Doesn't it seem improper to you that cities have the authority to operate their own retail outlets, while also enforcing a monopoly for themselves? I'm sure that money is good for Richfield, but MAN that seems messed up to me.

It definitely seems odd to me to be worried that a local monopoly will lose some of its monopoly profits from a tiny loosing in its government protections from competition.

I think the human mind is big enough to simultaneously hold these thoughts:

1. Municipal liquor stores are weird!

2. The impact that a city's budget might feel if they went away could be painful.

Wrong.

Would it be better as private stores with very high taxes?

Cities could also make common sense changes like closing on a Tuesday or Wednesday, while opening on Sundays. Sundays are the 2nd busiest shopping day of the week. Tuesdays and Wednesdays are the slowest. They could also choose to not open their stores at 9:00 in the damn morning, instead opening at noon on weekdays. Just like private stores, munis have always been free to set their own hours of operation. Some close at 8:00pm on weekdays, some are open until 10:00 Mon-Sat. Just like private stores, they can now choose to re-balance their hours to best match customer demand.

If profits drop too low, I do think some cities will eventually make that tough decision to get out of the business, but it won't happen right away. Edina's profits have gotten slaughtered by Total Wine in the last 2 years, and that's without Sunday Sales. In a city like Edina with high commercial property values, it's possible that profits will shrink to the point that it would make more sense to sell those properties to a private operator (or sell the land for redevelopment), directing the property sale proceeds into some kind of fund that benefits parks or stabilizes the budget in the near term.

Isn't the Richfield Liquor closed on Mondays already anyways?

2. The impact that a city's budget might feel if they went away could be painful.

They aren't going away. The might be slightly less profitable.

Isn't the Richfield Liquor closed on Mondays already anyways?

Nope. http://www.cityofrichfield.org/departme ... ions-hours

I don't get the muni hate... I think it's a shame Minneapolis and St. Paul don't take advantage of this. Obviously selling things isn't a complete replacement for tax revenue, but it's a nice supplement. As long as they're profitable for the cities to run, they should be in the business. The theoretical problems with it being a monopoly (worse service for higher price) aren't really an issue at all in a metro area where there is lots of competition with other cities, and private liquor stores in cities that choose to permit those.

Let's all just try to drink 17% more at home so that the extra sales can make up for the extra operating expense.

I don't get the muni hate...

It's not hate but I'm not sure there's any particularly good reason for cities to be in the businesses, much less grant themselves monopolies.

But it's only a very small part of the bigger competition issues in the liquor distribution chain.

I'm pretty underwhelmed by it all. Someday I'll probably buy beer on a Sunday.

They could also choose to not open their stores at 9:00 in the damn morning, instead opening at noon on weekdays.

I think at least some do this because they get their product delivered in the morning, and figure they might as well be open if they need someone there for that. But maybe that could be changed too; I don't know.

Let's all just try to drink 17% more at home so that the extra sales can make up for the extra operating expense.

Hear, hear!

Surdyk's opened for business today, in spite of the ban not being lifted until July.

About 1 p.m. Grant Wilson, a Minneapolis licensing inspector, showed up at Surdyk’s, where the parking lot was full of cars, and advised Jim Surdyk to “lock the doors.” If he did not comply with the advice, Wilson “was going to write me up,” according to Surdyk, who added that he planned on staying open till 6 p.m.

“I guess maybe [Jim Surdyk] is trying to make a point,” Spaulding said. “But what if he loses his license for a week?”