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. It is nice and all that the developer grew up here and lives here, but do you think a company that builds and rehabs cottage-style homes has the chops to develop $150 Million of office, retail, and residential? I'm guessing they will quickly be over their skis and begging the city for even more help... This project should occur organically and be developed by those that can handle the size and scope of something like this as several other posters have mentioned.

  2. It amazes me how people with apparently zero knowledge of free markets or capitalism feel the need to read and post on a business journal website. Perhaps the Daily Worker would suit your interests better. It's definitely more sympathetic to your pro government theft views. It's too bad the Star is so awful as I'm sure you would find a much better home there.

  3. In other cities, expensive new construction projects are announced by real estate developers. In Carmel, they are announced by the local mayor. I am so, so glad I don't live in Carmel's taxbase--did you see that Carmel, a small Midwest suburb, has $500 million in debt?? That's unreal! The mayor thinks he's playing with Lego sets and Monopoly money here! Let these projects develop organically without government/taxpayer backing! Also, from a design standpoint, the whole town of Carmel looks comical. Grand, French-style buildings and promenades, sitting next to tire yards. Who do you guys think you are? Just my POV as a recent transplant to Indy.

  4. GeorgeP, you mention "necessities". Where in the announcement did it say anything about basic essentials like groceries? None of the plans and "vision" have basic essentials listed and nothing has been built. Traffic WILL be a nightmare. There is no east/west road capacity. GeorgeP, you also post on www.carmelchatter.com and your posts have repeatedly been proven wrong. You seem to have a fair amount of inside knowledge. Do you work on the third floor of Carmel City Hal?

  5. I don't know about the commuter buses...but it's a huge joke to see these IndyGo buses with just one or two passengers. Absolutely a disgusting waste of TAXPAYER money. Get some cojones and stop funding them. These (all of them) council members work for you. FIRE THEM!

ADVERTISEMENT