Sunday, January 29, 2006

Self-distribution: Update.

Actions of politicians continue to astound, although I really suppose they shouldn't.

On Thursday, the subcommittee (of the House Committee on General Laws, which has jurisdiction over alcohol-related matters) considering HB 1288 - the wineries' self-distribution provision - voted down the provision by a 4-1 tally.

There has been no press coverage of this bill, so it's unclear to me why the delegates voted against the bill. I can think of only two groups who might oppose the legislation: (1) the neo-Prohibitionists, who knee-jerk oppose anything that makes it easier for adults to purchase a product they're legally permitted to purchase, and (2) Virginia wineries who are big enough that they already have distributors in order to get their wines throughout the state and who won't be able to benefit from self-distribution because their contracts with their distributors prohibit it. (And I don't see those Virginia wineries opposing the bill, because their future is dependent on a strong, growing Virginia wine industry.)

Distributors aren't going to oppose the bill, because they don't want the hassle of distributing small wineries' products, when there isn't much profit potential in the small-volume, small-markup wines. But if the bill passes, the Virginia ABC will force distributors to distribute the wines - I've seen it happen in the case of a small microbrewery - with threats to the distributors' licenses. And if that happens, no one involved with the distribution - wineries, distributors, retailers and restaurants, and customers - will be well served.

And plenty of groups - among them, the Virginia Vineyards Association,
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Virginia Agribusiness Council, and
Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association - supported the bill.

The good news - to the extent there is any here - is that the bill is scheduled for reconsideration on Tuesday, by the entire House Committee on General Laws. There's still time to contact your representatives (and, more importantly, the members of that committee).

No comments: