Objective: is to recommend action to a decision-maker. Please consider that your recommendation may be to capitalize on an opportunity or to reject a course of action. Above all, this a chance to demonstrate your critical thinking skills and written communication skills based on everything we have covered in English 316. Remember to avoid personal opinion. This is not an editorial; avoid emotional appeals.
The objective of this essay paper is to conduct evidence-based research to inform the recommendation against selling of wines and spirits in grocery and big-box stores in Connecticut (CT). The paper aims to inform policy formulation on the need to curb and curtail any sale of wines and spirits in big box and grocery stores due to the enormous risk and exposure it puts CT population.
Audience: is CT state and local government, taxpayers, small business owners, and business leaders. Consider competing agendas.
The primary audience of this proposal comprises of the CT state residents, government, and legislators, school administrators, parents, church and the clergy, small business owners, community at large, among other stakeholders. In overall, the CT state community provides a platform to champion against the sale of wines and spirits in every corner of the society. This is vital to prevent the extensive increase in the number of addicts due to the ease of available and access to wines and spirits in the CT state.
Topic: 1. Analysis and recommendation whether to allow wine and spirits sales in grocery and big-box stores in Connecticut.
~ Look at state and local efforts both for and against the concept (lobbying groups for package stores, the liquor industry and supermarkets should be included)
~Look at how alcohol is priced in CT.
~ Look at the different pro and con arguments
~ Look at potential outcomes
In CT state, a clique of legislators and lobbyists are advancing steps to have small grocery stores permitted to sell wines and big box and supermarkets allowed to sell beer. The move is highly opposed by package and convenience stores that sees it as a threat to their businesses and existence (Branch). The sale of wines and spirits among other alcoholic drinks presents major gains made by the alcohol industry in CT. For the package and convenience stores, the alcohol industry indicates wine as the most profitable item they have their shelves opening a profound battle in the legislation of who should be allowed the permits or not. Among the citizens of the state of CT, taking part in public participation views the move as a threat to their wellbeing (Taylor). This is informed by the intensified exposure of addicts to more and more alcohol furthering their potentiality of succumbing to addiction.
Currently, liquor laws in the state of CT permit the availability of package store licenses town-by-town. This is based on the ratio of one liquor license per 2,500 residents. As a result, there are approximately 1,250 retail outlets that exist across the state of CT (Rankin). The sector employees over 15,000 individuals that directly rely on the existing system to provide and cater for their families and needs (Dixon). A further allowing of more licenses without limits opens the need for intensive competition from a wide array of owners across the state.
HB6101 – entails an Act Concerning Various Issues Related to the Liquor Control Act. This is the most profound development seeking to alter the existing laws that provide a limit to the sale of liquor licensing. The bill is proposed by state Rep. Michael D’Agostino (Democrat) from Hamden who argues that it is a game changer allowing the profits of the industry to be split among the residents of CT and a major shot to revamping the ailing restaurant industry (Branch).
Proponents of HB6101 cite the numerous economic benefits the bill would industry to the triving alcohol industry in CT (Keating). The sale of wine has been one of the most progressive business in the state of CT indicating the vast opportunity to which the residents can exploit to increase their economic gains. Over the pandemic period, package stores have seen their sales from wines increase by 15 percent which allow other stores to benefit from the increased profits.
As an opposition to the bill, the approval and its implementation risks to induce economic destabilization (Keating). The attempt to share the profits from the alcohol industry can mean a major blow to the sector as it introduces extensive competition.
Moreover, the social aspect of approving and implementing the bill supersedes the economic gains that could potentially be experienced. That is, more and more residents of the CT are bound to be put to more risk of addiction to exposure resulting to the ease of availability and access. Resident’s view the approach as a threat to their livelihood, families, and society as it is bound to increase the number of addicts. Thus, the government itself is destined to increase funding to public health in dealing with ballooning addiction cases and render its populace unproductive. Furthermore, families are guaranteed of loss of valued members, open them to risks of psychosocial and psychological problems associated with drunkenness and addiction.
Topic—I have selected against the sale of wine and spirits in grocery and big-box stores in Connecticut.
Patron—Who would be willing to fund this project? Why would they want to fund it? [Who is responsible for the population, and who would be the person to 1) grant permission or access, and/or 2) provide funds to address the problem?] Give 2-3 potential patrons:
Population—Who does the problem affect? That is, who has a stake in seeing that there is a solution to the problem? Does your population have the same interests as the patron? Give at least 4 different stakeholders.
Problem—What are the main problems that need to be addressed? How could research shed light on these problems to emphasize their scale, scope, and significance? What sources of information about the problem would the patron find most persuasive?
You will look at 3 time periods. Please state the overall problem here.
Allowing grocery and big-box stores to sell liquor and wine would be detrimental to Connecticut’s sector of small businesses and to CT’s economy. CT’s package stores would be placed in jeopardy if made to compete with large retailers who could potentially control the entire alcohol chain. Allowing large retailers to sell wine and liquor could result in disrupting CT’s already healthy marketplace.
In 2009, the sale of beer was permitted in grocery and large retailers. 2012, when Connecticut allowed the sale of beer in grocery and large retailers. Since 1975, there have been 12 community colleges in Connecticut. Both the population and tuition were significantly lower until the 1990s.The review of the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association in the 21st century allows the states to deregulate their alcohol laws respectively (Rankin). This is based on a three tier system that prevents marketplace domination by large companies. As a result, paves the way for states like CT to evaluate the regulation of the alcohol industry.
Connecticut has a healthy marketplace of has approximately 1,250 package stores. The industry employees approximately 15,000 people that rely on the sector for their livelihood. Over the course of the pandemic, the sale of wines and other alcoholic drinks has increase the profits for package and convenience stores by 15 percent. This has resulted on the need to review the existing laws on limiting of one licensed store per 2,500 residents to expand the exploitation of the benefits of the sector (Branch). Thus, the proposal to remove the limitations of the law.
States where there is a quantity model have extensive opportunities to expand their sale of alcoholic drinks. The likely future is that grocery and large retailers will increase their sales by 5% by decreasing their wine and liquor available on return on investments. However, economic benefits that can be brought in by the increased availability and access of alcoholic drinks across the state will be overshadowed by the erosion of the social aspects. In general, the review of the bill and remove of limits is a bad move for the state.
Paradigm—What disciplines (e.g., computer science, marketing, education, psychology, etc.) might be useful in developing a disciplinary matrix for providing a rationale for action? Where might models of success be found to help shape the plan? What specific types of research would help?
Based on your preliminary research, identify two possible models of success that you will address further in your TA. (5-6 sentences each.
3) A second model of success would be that the large retail or grocery store would be required to attach a separate entity that would allow the sale of wine and spirits. This makes it easier for other market players to compete effectively and share the spoils gained from the profits of alcohol industry. It is vital for the regulation of entire industry to enable more businesses to operate effectively and remove the monopoly of large companies.
Plan—Give 2 possible plans that might solve the problem. What constrains the political feasibility of the plans? What would you need to know in order to develop a logical plan?
The first plan that might work rests on the argument that free community college would boost the number of qualified workers in the state as we move away from manufacturing and into a service economy. According to XYJ Journal, “Connecticut needs to attract new businesses yet employers complain that there are not enough qualified workers in the state” (Jones). However, CT is already in severe budget trouble so a plan like this could be too expensive. Further study would need to be done on how the state could partner with private industry to reduce expenses.
2) A second plan recognizes that taxes in CT are already so high that businesses and individuals are leaving for lower tax states. Securing a permanent funding source for free community college will be very difficult because it is politically not feasible for taxes to be raised in CT. Funding free community college will need to be more creative than tax-and-spend, which is why CT needs to seriously consider what Tennessee has done.
Price—How might your budget be limited? How much do you think the project might cost? How can that spending be justified? The state of CT’s budget would need to be considered here. Get 2 expert quotes on how much the project might hurt or benefit the key stakeholders (Population section).
The conduct of a research on the deregulation of existing laws to accommodate more players in the sale of wines and spirits across CT state would require a high budget. The budget is expected to run on billions of dollars that makes it a cumbersome approach. Pesce, president of the Connecticut Food Association cites “economic factors as compared to competition for wine sales as the major impediment to the bill” (Stuart). Andreo, an owner of Putnam Plaza Super Liquors posits that the bill opens more economic risks and puts groceries stores at inconvenience of selling food to consumers more effectively (Stuart). The change of the law is a tedious and expensive endeavor that requires the state to commit more its funds to creating public awareness and regulating how the operators function in the sector. Therefore, the economic benefits bound to be experience from the change of the law would require additional sum to counter the adverse effects experienced from the same. Hence, it makes an economically infeasibility approach.
Branch, Alfred. “CT package & convenience stores fight proposed alcohol sale plans.” Patch. https://patch.com/connecticut/across-ct/ct-package-convenience-stores-fight-proposed-alcohol-sale-bills (2021, Feb 6).
Dixon, Ken. “Package store owners: Wine sales in supermarkets will threaten them.” New Haven Register CT Insider. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/nhregister/article/Package-store-owners-Wine-sales-in-supermarkets-15926584.php (2021, Feb 5).
Keating, Christopher. “Connecticut lawmakers, lobbyists push to allow wine sales in supermarkets.” Hartford Courant. https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-wine-in-grocery-stores-20210126-xadqocbaubhofmce5itl75pamq-story.html?int=lat_digitaladshouse_bx-modal_acquisition-subscriber_ngux_display-ad-interstitial_bx-bonus-story (2021, Jan 26).
Rankin, Doug. “Deregulation Jenga” What selling wine at grocery stores could mean for a thriving sector of the Connecticut economy.” The CT Mirror. https://ctmirror.org/category/ct-viewpoints/deregulation-jenga-what-key-sections-of-hb-6101-could-mean-for-a-thriving-sector-of-the-connecticut-economy/ (2021, Mar 19).
Stuart, Christine. “Package stores in the wine fight for their lives.” CTNews Junkie. https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2021/02/04/package-stores-in-the-wine-fight-for-their-lives/ (2021, Feb 4).
Taylor, Shara. “Public hearing held on proposed bill to have wine sold in grocery stores.” Fox61. https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/alcohol-liquor-bill-connecticut-farm-wine/520-a87806c8-162f-47e1-a263-a26a0b1e9ec0 (2021, Feb 4).
White, James Scott. “An Analysis of the Politics and Economics of Allowing Wine in Grocery Stores in Tennesssee.” (2014).