IBJNews

Judges to hear challenge to state’s alcohol permit process

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A complaint arguing that Indiana’s system of issuing alcohol permits violates state law is set to be heard by a panel of appellate court judges on Monday.

The Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, which represents the state’s package liquor stores, is seeking to stop the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission from issuing new permits until the judges can clarify state quota laws.

The dispute arose from a legislative compromise in 2008 that rewrote beer permit rules and lowered the number of available alcohol permits based on population. The association agreed to the deal, provided that drugstores be classified as grocery stores when applying for an alcohol permit—in theory limiting competition.

But the commission has interpreted the law so that groceries and drugstores have separate quotas and, as a result, the association says permit numbers in some cities exceed what should be allowed.

“If [it’s] not counting them against the quota, there are more of them out there, which increases competition,” said John Livengood, president and CEO of the beverage retailers association. “We’re getting to the point where we’re awash in alcohol permits.”

Dozens of alcohol permits filed by the Walgreens drugstore chain further pushed the beverage retailers association to challenge the permitting process. Walgreens received approval to sell alcohol at 14 of its stores in Indianapolis. Altogether, it had sought to sell alcohol in 183 stores throughout the state.

In a court filing, the beverage retailers association cites an example in which a town might have 12 beer dealer permits available. But under the method in which the commission interprets the law, a total of 24 beer permits could be issued.

“There is only one type of beer dealer’s permit available to grocery stores and drugstores under the relevant statutory provisions or under any rule,” the association argued in the filing.

The case is being considered on appeal after a Marion Superior Court judge last year denied a motion by the beverage retailers association for a temporary restraining order seeking to halt permits.

“We thought the trial court got it right,” said Mark Massa, chairman of the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission. “It’s been the custom and practice for nearly 40 years to count permits in this manner.

A three-judge state appellate court panel will hear oral arguments at 11 a.m. Monday in Room 413 of the Statehouse.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Competition
    Why does the Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers think they are going to get public sympathy by saying more permits creates more competition? Maybe competition is bad for them but it's good for us consumers! I can't stand these people. They're not for preventing drunk driving or any other facade they put up, they're out for themselves.
  • Show ID
    Aren't we tired of the "lets get the drivers license out" every single time we buy a case of beer. Who was the rocket scientist that came up with this law?
  • Typical
    The Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers has no clue what the real value of a Liquor stores is. It is not in the sale of commodity alcohol. It's in their vastly superior selection and a trained and knowledgeable staff.
  • really?
    So competition is a bad thing now? Sounds like someone is trying really hard to protect their own interests.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    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
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

    2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

    3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    4. If you only knew....

    5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

    ADVERTISEMENT