IBJNews

UPDATE: Walgreens goes 0-for-4 in pursuit of liquor permits

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

None of the four Indianapolis stores in which Walgreen Co. wanted to sell alcohol received approval to do so on Monday.

Marion County's Alcoholic Beverage Board unanimously denied Walgreen Co.’s request for a permit to sell alcohol at its store on East Washington Street in Irvington, citing neighborhood opposition.

The board later deadlocked, 2-2, on whether to grant the Illinois-based drugstore chain’s request to sell alcohol at its store at 1505 E. 86th St. near North Central High School. The Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission could make a decision on the applications at its Aug. 17 meeting, or remand the request back to the board.

Earlier, the drugstore chain withdrew its applications to sell alcohol at two other Indianapolis stores.

It dropped plans to sell booze at its 3003 Kessler Blvd. North Drive location, given its proximity to Cardinal Ritter High School and other educational institutions. It also gave up on alcohol sales at the 9050 E. 38th St. store because of community opposition.

The local Alcoholic Beverage Board makes recommendations on permit applications to the state Alcohol & Tobacco Commission, which has the final say on such matters. The state agency has voted to allow Walgreens to sell alcohol at 18 of the Marion County stores the local board approved.

A lack of resistance present at Monday’s meeting regarding the East 86th Street store prompted board member Arthur Borel to vote in favor. But fellow member Jennifer Ping cited her appointment by the City-County Council for her “no” vote.

A letter she received from Council President Ryan Vaughn, who mentioned the store’s close proximity to North Central High School, made the difference.

“That’s why he asked us to vote against this,” Ping said, “so I’m going to respect and honor his request.”

Opposition to the Irvington store at 5460 E. Washington St., however, was much more evident.

City-County Councilor Benjamin Hunter, along with Irvington resident Brian Mack, a former president of the Irvington Community Council, presented arguments to oppose the request.

Responding to a Walgreens petition that indicated support for alcohol sales, Mack responded, “If I was a business owner and I wanted to sell guns or lap dances, I could find enough people to support it,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it’s an asset to the neighborhood.”

Concerns over alcohol sales contributing to more crime in the Irvington neighborhood, as well as an already-ample supply of liquor locations, led board members to deny the request.

That the Walgreens store on East Washington Street locks up basic items such as deodorant and shampoo because of the frequency in which they are stolen swayed board member Claudia Cummings to deny the request.

“If you have to lock up those items,” she said, “that indicates you’ve got a problem there with shoplifting.”
 
Still, attorney Lisa McKinney Goldner, a lawyer at Indianapolis-based Bose McKinney & Evans LLP who represents Walgreens, remained hopeful that the state Alcohol & Tobacco Commission will approve the request for the East 86th Street store.

“We’re trying to answer a need and desire,” she said. “I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding. We believe we’re different.”

While presenting Walgreens' case, Goldner listed several additional security measures the stores would take to combat shoplifting and selling to minors.

Neighborhood groups have been up in arms about Walgreens’ plans for months, saying additional alcohol sales could lead to more crime.

Representatives from Drug Free Marion County and the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations have expressed opposition to the new alcoholic beverage permits.

Walgreens stopped selling alcohol more than a decade ago. But competition, mainly from rival Rhode Island-based CVS Caremark Corp., is prompting the change in policy.

Altogether, Walgreens wants to sell alcohol in 183 stores throughout the state. Besides the stores in Marion County, all have received approval, except for a handful in Lake County.
 
The Marion County Alcoholic Beverage Board is set to vote on six more Walgreens locations at its Oct. 4 meeting. Those have been delayed due to zoning issues.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT