Walgreen gets OK to sell booze at 18 more stores

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eighteen Walgreens stores in Marion County received preliminary approval Monday afternoon to begin selling alcohol despite opposition from two local organizations claiming increased beer and wine sales could lead to more crime.

The Local Alcoholic Beverage Board of Marion County recommended permits for 18 of the 28 stores for which Walgreens is seeking to sell alcohol. Permit requests for the remaining 10 are scheduled to be heard on Aug. 2.

The board’s recommendations now will be considered by the Indiana Alcohol Tobacco Commission, which could occur on June. 15. If the ATC grants its approval, the 18 stores could begin selling alcohol within about a month, said Lisa McKinney Goldner, a lawyer representing the Illinois-based drugstore chain.

“We were pleased that the board listened to us, that we would be a responsible outlet,” she said.

Altogether, Walgreens wants to sell alcohol in 183 stores throughout the state and has received approval for roughly three-fourths of those locations, McKinney Goldner, a lawyer at Indianapolis-based Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, said.

Among the 18 in Marion County receiving the board’s recommendation was the store at 1530 N. Meridian St., across from a CVS/pharmacy that also sells alcohol.

Representatives from Drug Free Marion County and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations expressed opposition to another retail location selling alcohol in the area.

“What research shows us is that when you get a high density of alcohol outlets, you increase crime, particularly assaults,” said Nancy Beals, project coordinator for Drug Free Marion County. “God knows we have a crime problem here.”

One Walgreens store that likely won’t be selling alcohol is at 3003 Kessler Blvd. It is located within 200 feet of a church or school, which violates local zoning ordinances and prevents it from stocking beer, wine and hard liquor.  

Walgreen Co. lawyer McKinney Goldner said the permit request for that location will be pulled.




    The last time the GOP governor and his ABC told our community that a new liquor store in our neighborhood would be good for the community, good for buisness, good for the city was a failure for everyone but the cronies who sell the booze. Since then crime has flown off the charts, drive by shootings, prostitutes hang out, and the litter and empty bottles are a constant sore to the community. SHAME on THAT MAN MITCH, his GOP ABC board. I know MITCH will get a big campaign contribution for his race for president. After all it is not the booze that causes the crime, just the suckers who buy it. Let us make it even easier to buy. Gee it will be where someone cannot even go to a drug store to buy medicine without sending him to a liquor store. Perhaps that is the next thing MITCH will deregulate, allowing underage minors into liquor stores to purchase the booze for their parents who are too drunk to go and get it themselves.
  • Industry standards?
    Isn't there a standard formula of what concentration of liquor outlet are acceptable per capita and per square mile? Maybe even a crime level screen?

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...