Some Wichita liquor store owners continue to whine about the local ordinance change that allows them to make money on Sundays, starting this coming Sunday (unless a local petition drive meets its numbers goal, in which case it will be on the ballot Aug. 7).
They should give it a rest.
Why should liquor stores be immune from the market decisions that other businesses have to make about whether it’s worth staying open on Sundays?
The bottom line is, they don’t have to open on Sundays — nothing in the law forces them to do so. They say it’s not so simple: Competition will pressure them. Well, that’s the free market.
They should simply decide whether it’s in their economic or personal interests to sell on Sundays. And stop complaining.
posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
54 Comments
While I don;t care one whit about Sunday Sales one way or another, suddenly changing the rules about business conduct, after years, decades in fact, of the same business model, created and enforced by the state, is going to draw complaints. Why is that so hard to understand, Randy?
If the smart business man doesn’t want to open on Sunday, he doesn’t have to do so.
He can just have Saturday sales so attractive, that one would have to be a certified hootch hound to go to a “Sunday” store and not take advantage of the reduced prices the day before.
The casino an Sunday-sales opponents have just made a _huge_ strategic blunder.
I’m expecting this vote to have incredibly low turnout. We already know that, just for the casino issue, the radical conservatives are going to go vote “no.” Pro-casino folks aren’t highly motivated to vote on this issue. I would have bet 14 to 17% turnout on the casino issue.
However…with Sunday-sales on the ballot:A) the radical conservative turnout isn’t going to increase much, if at all, over just having a casino vote, andB) Sunday sales will almost certainly motivate more pro-casino _and_ pro-sales voters to go to the polls.
I think we’ll now see 19 to 24% turnout, and that boost will go to the casino & Sunday-sales side.
Good idea Republican.
So the convervative agend boils down, “littlejohn,” to “We’ve always done it this way”?
Phhht!
The ban on Sunday sales of liquor is just as arbitrary as banning the sale of lettuce during even-numbered hours on Tuesday. Any liquor store — in fact, any store period — can choose to open or close on any days, at any hours, during any months the owner chooses. Or should.
There’s nothing magic about turning off the beer taps at midnight or last call at 2 a.m. It’s all arbitrary and an infringement on the conservative model of free enterprise.
If you really believed in your “Less Government” mantra, so popular with so-called “conservatives,” 7-year-olds could buy a bottle of Jack Daniels at 4 o’clock in the morning. *OR* the retailer could decide that maybe s/he doesn’t want to sell bourbon to pre-schoolers in the middle of the night. After all, people in business are generally conservatives, right? They’ll do the right thing because they’re conservatives, right?
Right?
Or is it the “Nanny State” that imposes restrictions on free trade, simply to promote the power of government?
Kansans lived with “conservative” hypocrisy for 30 years when liquor-by-the-drink was outlawed due to an unholy alliance of the Kansas United Dry Forces and the American Legion (which had a virtual monopoly of retail by-the-drink liquor across the state).
Silly, meaningless differences between 5% beer “by volume” and 3.2% *by weight* “cereal malt beverages exist for no other reason than to oppress so-called “conservative” ethos via an oppressive state.
Gee, I thought all you “conservatives” opposed an oppressive state.
Nope. You want to impose your religious, ethical, and moral prejudices on everyone else.
“Conservatism” has nothing to do with it.
I am not advocating Sunday Sales, or protesting against. I don’t give a crap one way or the other. My point was that changing a business model that had been state creaed and enforced for decades, is going to get complaints. As it would for any business. I am sure smart business people will adapt. That wasn’t Randy’s subject, it seemed to me
LTP, if you had used a less silly example than 7 year old purchasing liquor, you may have made a point.
But let’s turn it around. As a lib, how does it feel to be on the side of unrestricted capitalism? And since you are on their side, what are you doing advocating a minimum wage, telling those business owners what they have to pay employees?
Long time poster,
Did you not read my post? I don;t get a rats ass about when the liquor stores are open are not. I don;t care if they are open 24/7. That wasn;t my message. I simply pointed out that a stated decided, and state enforced business model, suddenly changed, is going to draw complaints. You spinning it into something about “conservatism” just shows either your ignorance, or your desire to stir things up.And the little straw man about alcohol percentages? where was that in the topic, why does it matter, and why do you think you know my posiiton?
long time poster, first time lurker-
Phhht!
When I was growing up in Georgia it was illegal to sell MILK on Sundays. The ban on liquor sales on Sunday is just as rediculous.
Tom – since they failed to get it on the ballot the turnout will still be very low. And you are correct; the anti-casino voters will be out in force. That is ONE of the reasons the casino will fail August 7 (my prediction now). I will give my detailed reasons for that prediction (not my wishes, my prediction) later. There are actually several factors conspiring against the casino.
Ben-
I agree. and could care less about when or where liquor is sold. Wal-Mart could sell it as far as I;m concerned.
I do hope the casino goes in. I think that those dollars are already leaving, and maybe Wichita could capture some of them. And while I don;t usually frequent casinos, finding them generally money suckers from which my kids could have taken lessons, it can be fun once in a great while to just throw some money away in entertainment dollars. Although as I get older, the entertainment grows less and the pain grows more
Ben,
Has there been an announcement about the Sunday-sales ban? I thought they were still certifying signatures.
Sunday sales petition fails
BY BRENT WISTROMThe Wichita Eagle
A petition to force a citywide vote on Sunday alcohol sales failed this morning, Sedgwick County Election Commissioner Bill Gale said.
That means scores of liquor stores will be open this Sunday, and convenience stores throughout Wichita will be able to sell the alcoholic beverages they already sell all week.
Alcohol sales will now be legal from noon to 8 p.m. on Sundays and many legal holidays. Stores still could not sell on Easter, Christmas or Thanksgiving.
Only about 60 percent of the 7,181 petition signatures were valid, Gale said.
The final tally had 4,200 valid signatures and 2,981 invalid.
The petition would have needed 6,701 valid signatures to force the issue to the Aug. 7 ballot.
Gale said about a third were not residents of Wichita, another third were not registered voters and another third had mismatching information, such as incorrect addresses.
Gale said his office tried to complete the verification of the petitions before the Fourth of July because several store owners wanted to open Wednesday if the petition failed. The Elections Office finished the count a day earlier than expected, but not in time for the Fourth of July.
Thanks for the article, Littlejohn. I checked updates an hour ago, didn’t see that article up.
“The final tally had 4,200 valid signatures and 2,981 invalid.”
Ummmm…..that’s one big pile of fraudulent signatures!
Isn’t it the radicals who complain the “liberals” cheat on elections???? This petition campaign was _NOT_ run by “liberals,” it came out of the radicalized churches.
Lots of bad signatures, but I am not sure an usual amount. some people will just sign anything, regardless of their residence or being registered. I’ve seen it a few times. Idiots.
not to say the “radicalized” churches weren;t behind the drive to not allow Sunday Sales. I’m sure they were.
Ben,
If the radicals weren’t motivated to vote against the casino before, _this_ development will certainly get them out. I agree with you that the casino will fail. Let’s see if our reasoning matches up anywhere:
1. Highly motivated religious radicals2. Unmotivated general electorate3. August election – always badbadbad for turnout4. Community “leaders” coming out against the casino5. Where the hell is the pro-casino campaign? With the amount of money at stake, this campaign should have been very, very visible by now.6. Spillover from the arena. There are no details on where a new casino would go, who would get eminent-domained, and how much the city and/or county will end up spending on infrastructure (street & services improvements). Voters are already irritated that the terms of the arena deal keep changing. I don’t know there’s going to be much trust on this issue.
” Where the hell is the pro-casino campaign? With the amount of money at stake, this campaign should have been very, very visible by now.”
That seems like a very logical question. Is there nobody who really believes in a Wichita casino? WHere are the ads?
How fitting that one of the Kansas Christian Taliban’s pet issues goes down in flames due to fradulent signatures on a petition. The holier than thou crowd doesn’t mind a little deception and fraud if it will help with their pursuit of a Christian theocracy. Bible thumping, anti freedom hypocrites.
Tom – your #6 is the big one I think. The uncertainty about where it will go adds to it. And, to top it off, I have literally been told that I must trust city leaders when they say they will do the right thing.
I find it ironical that Randy Scholfield wants to let markets rule over Sunday liquor sales, but not on things that are really important, such as the provision of education, or even things that arent so important, such as government-mandated taxation to support a downtown arena.
anon,how could the markets drive government-mandated taxation? Aren’t those mutually exclusive?
I clarify: let markets drive the provision of entertainment facilities, rather than taxation and government mandate.
We should also lets markets take care of economic development. If the recent loss of the bowling tournament was really worth $100 million to some group, shouldn’t that group be more interested than government in receiving the benefit?
That group — if in fact it does exist — must feel pretty sad having trusted their livelihood to government bureaucrats.
The government mandated taxation for the arena was voted on by the public, passed and therefore enacted.
I do not agree with the direction that the arena project has gone, but the tax is legitimate – we voted on it.
The problem is that we have a government that thinks these types of things are legitimate, even if a majority agrees.
For quite a while in this country a majority thought it was legitimate to own slaves, and in many states the majority thought it was okay to deny certain classes of people the right to vote.
Man has rights beyond what a majority of voters or legislators say they have.
So move out of Sedgwick County.
Now that’s a good strategy for economic growth!
We are a democratic republic – we voted on the tax and approved it.
Are you suggesting that we NEVER collect taxes for the purpose of community facilities?
If so, then you can expect Wichita and Sedgwick County to become a ghost town.
If we are not to be bound by a vote of the people, we may as well close up shop.
Yes, I am sugesting we not collect taxes for community facilities.
How do you think slaves felt being “bound by a vote of the people” as well as being bound by chains?
If you are such a fan of majority rule, remember that’s something a majority can do.
Here in Kansas a two-thirds majority voted to deny gay people the right to marry that non-gays enjoy. How do you think they feel about majority rule?
I voted against the gay marriage denial – it was the right thing to do.
But using your logic, there should be no libraries, no police stations, no fire houses, no parks, no roads, no drainage systems, no sewers, no water supplies, no tornado sirens, no voting booths.
Is that how you want it?
By your post, I would come to that conclusion.
Are you assuming that only government can provide these things?
Many of those things you listed that government provides: are you satisfied with them? I notice you didn’t list schools, which is one government program that many are not satisfied with.
And if allowing gays to marry is the right thing, how do you reconcile the fact that they can’t marry with the sanctity or infallibility of majority rule?
“And if allowing gays to marry is the right thing, how do you reconcile the fact that they can’t marry with the sanctity or infallibility of majority rule?”
I don’t.
But according to your apparent thought process, the military should also be a private, for-hire concern.
How about the roads? Should they all be private toll roads?
Private police and fire fighters?
Do you believe that all services provided by the government should be private? How would you propose to pay for them? Pay as you go?
Following your governmental model, the United States would now be a Third World country.
The answer is yes, all those things can be, and some have been, provided privately rather than through government.
Your leap of logic, that if government doesn’t provide these things for use, that we would be a third world country, that doesn’t seem right to me. How does that come to be?
It seems to me that you are willing to accept or tolerate an unjust government as long as it provides fire protection? I that what you are saying?
Especially since these things can be provided privately instead of through government.
“accept or tolerate an unjust government”
You never answered as to how these things would be paid for – according to you, all taxes are unjust, so what is your plan?
Our government may not be perfect, but I fail to see your alternative.
No taxes – no services – or anarchy?
By the way, do you have a clue as to which laws we should have – those passed by the government by our representatives or none at all?
Easy question, right?
But you decline to answer how no services provided by government leads to a third world country, which, by the way, is not the same as anarchy. Third world countries, at least I would say many of them, have way too much government, although it is of the wrong type.
The government should exist to keep us free from force, fraud, and coercion, whether it be from others or, commonly, from the government itself.
Almost every other law we have leads to a loss of liberty. These laws include:
laws providing for public education,social security,welfare,subsidy to business or farm,laws that force us to associate with people we may not want to,laws agains gambling, drugs, prostitution, and other personal behavior,
and probably almost other laws on the books.
So how do you plan to pay for basic services, except through taxes.
And, yes, without basic services we would be a Third World country.
No laws, no roads, no schools, no social safety net, no police, no fire fighters, no military.
Sound good?
Your leap of logic, that if government doesn’t provide these things for use, that we would be a third world country, that doesn’t seem right to me. How does that come to be?Posted by: anonymous | July 05, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Take a look at just about any third-world country, and look at the national infrastructure. I think that’s evidence, don’t you?
“No laws, no roads, no schools, no social safety net, no police, no fire fighters, no military.”
Well, sure there would be…for the wealthy. You know, the haves and the have-mores. As long as they get theirs, what difference does it make?
So which are you, anon? A have or a have-more?
I have been following the news and there is a lot of controversy on Sunday Liquor Sales. I do not see what the big deal is. If you are a Liquor store owner and you do not want to be open on Sunday, then DUH, by all means close. If you want to be open, then open! It’s that simple. Just because they say you can be open does not mean that you have to be. I don’t own a liquor store, but if I did and they said that the Sunday sales passed and I don’t want to be open, then I’m not going to open. Plain and simple! Wichita has recently failed to get enough signatures on the petition to force a vote on Sunday liquor sales. There are many liquor store owners complaining that they are going to HAVE to be open. They are also complaining that they will have to order more stock and employ more people to work. I do not see what the problem is. Don’t open and you don’t have to order more stock, rearrange your employees and you sure don’t have to hire more people to work. But don’t complain when the liquor store down then street is making more money than you because you are not open on Sunday and they are. What planet are these people from? Planet stupid! Like I said before, if you don’t want to open, then don’t open. My parents own a liquor store and Sunday is the day that they like to be with family, so I can only speculate that they would not be open on Sunday so that they can be with their family.
How many restaurants do you know that are closed on Monday? How many hairdressers do you know that are closed on Monday? Most places that have business are open Monday through Saturday and take off on Sunday. There are even some businesses that are ONLY open M-F. But you do not hear people going around trying to get so many signatures on a petition to make these people be open on Mondays. Why is that? Because the ones that own their businesses are smart enough to make their own decisions. Why can’t liquor store owners do the same? How many doctors do you know that take off on Friday or a half day during the week? You don’t see them complaining that other doctors don’t take off. I mean, they already get Saturday and Sunday’s off, why do they need one during the week. Are we going around getting petitions to make our doctors work M-F and only take off on Saturday and Sunday? No? Why is that? Because it is not up to us the general public to tell a business owner or a doctor or anyone else for that matter what to do.
Why don’t us as general citizens BUTT OUT and let the business owners do what they want to do. We can’t, because we are not happy unless we are trying to control other people!
Just more stupidity at the behest of “christians”. The mythical man in the sky might get upset if you sell booze on sunday, PLEEEEASE!
Just a quick point to those of you bashing the “religious right” on this thread:I think it was a couple of Black dominated Churches on the North side of town that began this petition.That is their right, but I dont think the usual, politically active “right wing” ministers were much involved this time.
Please correct me, if I am wrong!
(HELL, why must I ask for that, you folks “correct” me when I am right?)
You know, if I get drunk enough on a Sunday I may just stumble into a church. Nah, I couldn’t ever get that drunk.
You all still assume that with no government, these things would not be provided.
Can you provide proof of that, just as you demand proof from me?
Without government, there would be no schools, WSClark? How do you suppose we were educated before the rise of government schools? That presumes that what the government supplies now can be termed “education,” which is is not.
And Tom, I am surprised at you. It is government that is denying you the equal rights that you seek. Do you want even more government, giving your opponents more ways to oppress you? That is what I see you are in favor of.
RD, I would say to you that whatever my personal situation is, for that to be the only basis of what I believe in, that wouldn’t give it much legitimatacy, would it?
Instaed we sould start from the proposition that each man owns himself, and proceed from there. Laws that are contrary to that are not just.
We sell our freedom to a harsh master when we believe, as it seems you all do, that the only way to get the things we need is through government.
We complain about roads all the time, don’t we? And who is it that owns the roads?
And now in Wichita we have a problem with gangs. Well, who provides police protection?
And are you, WSClark, satisfied with what our military is doing in IRaq?
It is government doing all these things! And you want more?
Anonymous,
Are you so clueless you don’t know the difference between a civil right, and a paved highway?
Oh my.
I don’t know where that question came from, Tom.
Did I make that comparison? Where?
Anonymous,
Can’t you keep track of your own posts?
At 8:38, you made a weak case that public infrastructure, such as roads and public safety, has been and can be provided by private enterprise. In your 11:57 post, you conflate my comment about infrastructure with civil rights.
I ask again: Are you so clueless you don’t know the difference between a civil right and a strip of pavement?
Don’t bother answering if you don’t want to. It’s a rhetorical question.
And who is it, using what mechanism, is denying you civil rights?
Does that give you an idea of where the problem lies?
Because government is so meddlesome, it grants favors to certain classes of people, and those not in those classes, naturally, feel left out.
Leading to even more government, with more ways to grant favors (or to wthhold them).
And then another round of expansion.
I think, Tom, that your charge of conflation is incorrectly made.
The wek case is that government, and only government, best provides these things.
your charge of conflation is incorrectly made.Posted by: anonymous | July 06, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Again, I refer you to your own posts.
Lifting the ban on Sunday sales will negatively impact the small businessmen who go out on Sundays with a trunk full of booze and sell it on street corners to anyone with cash.
Jed, you still sell the best bathtub gin in town. Your van will never be short on customers.
You know it is funny to me that these people seem to think that “because I do not wish to work on Sunday, nobody else should either therefore I will use the government to prevent you from doing so”. About the stupidist thing I have ever heard. There is a fast food chain here called Chick-Fill-A that has hundreds of locations and they ALL are closed on Sunday. Even the ones in malls. Somehow they manage to not only stay in business but do pretty well without the Sunday sales.
Doug,SSHHHH! The Revenooers will hear you!