Langley can’t afford Prop. 1183 | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
October 23, 2011 · 12:17 PM
To the editor:
I live in Langley. We have a small privately-owned liquor store. The owner gets her inventory from the state of Washington and pays the state for the inventory that has sold.
I recently asked her what the consequences would be if Prop. 1183 passes. Here is what I found out:
She would have to buy her existing inventory that she can’t afford to do, so she would go out of business.
The city of Langley would lose its share of the tax revenue generated by the liquor sales. In these financially challenged times, our town can’t afford to lose any revenue.
The other small liquor stores on the south end of Whidbey would, I assume, be in the same position as the Langley store, not able to purchase tens of thousands of dollars of inventory.
Since the requirement for new liquor stores is a minimum of 10,000 square feet (hardly a gas station or convenience store norm) we would be forced to travel out of our town to a supermarket in another community.
I lived in California for a lot of years.
I think it would be fine to be able to purchase liquor at our big supermarkets, but not at the expense of lost revenue for our town, the shutting down of yet another local business, the lost jobs that would result and having to drive several miles to go find a bottle of liquor.
Prop. 1183 is designed for urban areas of our state, not the small rural communities and towns currently served by state controlled liquor sales.
Ask your own questions at your small liquor store and see what they say. Then, make your own decision. For me, it’s just not worth it.
MARY ANN MANSFIELD