Foobooz - Your guide to food and drink in Philadelphia

  • Neighborhoods

     

  • Features






  •  

  • Tip Jar

    Have a food or drink tip? tips@foobooz.com (AIM:foobooz)

  • Opening Soon

  • Upcoming Events

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Masthead

    Editor
    Jason Sheehan
    Founder
    Arthur Etchells
    Advertising
    danielle@phillymag.com

  • Fun Things To Do in Philly

  • Subscribe

«
»

PLCB Lawsuit Takes Shape

Posted by Foobooz on May 26th, 2010

plcb_corkBrownstoner has the latest details of a pending lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board regarding the wine store within the Garces Trading Company.

Tria’s Jon Myerow, one of a dozen or so restaurateurs involved in the suit sums it up as “the issue is that of all restaurants being able to compete on a level playing field. In no other state has the alcohol governing body entered the restaurant industry to compete against the very businesses it regulates, all while partnering with hand-selected competitors.”

Just this past weekend we mulled over the arrangement as we recommended the Trading Company for a reasonable lunch. We couldn’t help but think that the consumer’s advantage of being able to purchase wine on site should not be a disadvantage to another proprietor.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Lawsuit Against PLCB Over Garces Wine Shop [Brownstoner]

Garces Trading Co.
1113 Locust St, Philadelphia, PA

    Related Tags: , , ,

    Related Posts

    This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm and is filed under Food Nerd News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

    • Terry

      I like Garces Trading Company, but Myerow – it is an unfair action for the government to take.

    • Tex

      I’m not an expert on this area of law, but I wouldn’t be surprised if having a separate entrance for the state store ends up being the solution. I don’t know if it’s physically workable there, though. I really hope the store stays. If other BYOs want one, let them rent an appropriate space.

    • mike

      Maybe they will let people put those vending machines in their BYOs?
      I hope Garces loses. It is completely unfair and really just a stupid bandaid. What is the difference between letting the waiters sell wine and making me get up and buy my wine from a state store employee? If anything we just drank more because we couldn’t get a a single glass of red with our meals.

    • cc

      I think it’s a smart move from Garces … and it proves how silly that PLCB thing is!!! Hope Garces wins!

    • capital

      Jon, take your business to NJ then. When you operate in this state you just have to deal with the crazy laws. How many wines do you support that are listed with the state in your bars? 0! Get on board an maybe they will too.

    • Maria

      Capital:
      Tria and all PA restaurants still have to buy their wine through the state– it is illegal for them to buy wine in NJ and bring it back to PA. The state has listed wines (a pretty scant list and lacking diversity) and SLO (special liquor order) Just because restaurants don’t carry listed wines doesn’t mean they aren’t already dealing with “crazy laws” and dealing with the PLCB. No PA restaurant has the choice “to get on board” They are forced to get on board. The PLCB pairing up with one restaurant to sell wine on premises creates an unfair advantage. Really the best solution would be: 1.Abolish the PLCB 2.Let all restaurants sell wine like Garces wants to…

    • Rebecca

      I can go to Garces Trading Co and buy a BOTTLE of wine for $13 that has been hand-picked by Garces to go with my cheese. Or I can go to Tria and have a glass of wine for almost the same price.

      It’s not even somewhat fair or just. I’m hopeful this lawsuit is the beginning of more change with the archaic PLCB.

    • Tex

      I can go to Garces Trading Company and buy a bottle of wine that I can take to Kanella or Mercato. I can also go to Garces Trading Company and take a bottle of wine that I bought anywhere else in the world. What I can’t do is go to Garces Trading Company and sample only one glass of several different wines. What I also can’t do is go to Garces Trading Company and buy beer. The case that this arrangement is “unfair to” or “competes with” Tria is vastly overstated. If this lawsuit gets filed and the state store is forced to close, I will boycott Tria forever. (I know that Myerow’s far from the only one behind it, but he’s chosen to make himself the most visible.)

    • Joe K

      This isn’t just Tria. It also includes BYOB’s (at least Lolita). Are you going to boycott them too, Tex? Yes, you don’t have to drink the wine there, but what do you think is more likely?

      The other question I have is this: Does Garces or his establishment have a hand in the wines that get chosen and sold there? THAT would definitely not be a level playing field.

    • rory

      Tex-

      If you think those are identical (nevermind Garces’ ability to select wines for sale that would be otherwise unavailable in PA, I believe), then I don’t know what to tell you.

    • Tex

      There would be little practical difference in Garces’ situation if his restaurant were a door or two down from a state store. Is it “unfair” to be closer to a state store than other BYOs? I agree that it would be unfair if another BYO owner (1) rented a space that could accomodate a state store, and (2) sought but was denied a similar arrangement on terms identical to Garces’. Unless and until that’s shown, other BYO owners have nothing to complain about. As for the restaurants with liquor licenses, I didn’t see them lining up to object when suburban Whole Foods and Wegmans started getting beer and state stores with wines for their in-house cafes. This is all about trying to protect their bottom lines, and taking out something that is indisputably good for the neighborhood in the process. In any event, the competition angle is oversold. People will still go to Tria et al. if their food and wine selection are good enough. It’s interesting that Marc Vetri doesn’t seem to feel threatened.

    • Josh A

      But BYO owners are regularly denied the ability to have a state store in their establishment. The PLCB came right out and said Garces is the only one who will have this permit. They haven’t made the permit available to anyone else, as far as we know. So until PLCB makes it known how someone could apply to have this same special kind of store, its an unfair advantage and its being propogated by a state agency. It’s way illegal for the state to give favorable treatement to one owner over others.

      And there were plenty of resturant and bar owners in the suburbs that were upset about wegmans and whole foods getting the six packs. There was a two year law suit before wegman’s was able to do it, and the distributor’s are still complaining and litigating. And that was only for beer, not wine, not liquor.

    • rory

      Tex-

      you’ve got to be kidding me!

      “Is it “unfair” to be closer to a state store than other BYOs?” Not remotely the same. And I’m sure real estate prices go up for byobs depending on closeness to a state store. When the PLCB partners with a byob owner to partner with and open a state store next door, then yes, that’s unfair.

      Another person doesn’t need to think up the same unfair business practice as the PLCB (who proposed this, supposedly) in order to make a case that it is an unfair business practice.

      “This is all about trying to protect their bottom lines, and taking out something that is indisputably good for the neighborhood in the process.” Yes, it is about bottom lines. Just like the PLCB’s decision was based on its bottom line.

      Vetri isn’t (appearing to be) threatened because he doesn’t have a direct competitor in that neighborhood. And he’s Vetri–he doesn’t really have to worry.

      Your complaint about the wegman’s is ridiculous: because not only would they not have grounds (how is the wegman’s harming them?), but also because it’s again an absurd claim that they should sue immediately once this happens to one business. It’s like saying I shouldn’t snitch out the guy on the corner of my block who tried to sell me drugs because I didn’t snitch out the guy up in Kensington when he did the same thing.

    • melina

      definitely not a level playing field. the wine store in garces is open until 10pm. the regular state store in the neighborhood is open until 9pm. that is cleary an unfair advantage for byobs.

      I’m sure the byob restaurants in the neighborhood would love to send their customers to garces’ restaurant to buy a bottle at 9pm (since that is the only place they can go at that time)-and wouldn’t lose a single customer to a business that has a mini wine convenience store within their establishment.

      yeah right.

    • Tex

      I like having Garces’ restaurant with the wine shop. I assume most of the readers here do, too. If it’s unfair, then I’m all for other restauranteurs suing the LCB for whatever treatment of *them* (e.g., a denied opportunity) makes it unfair. What I’m not for is suing to deprive the neighborhood of this establishment. That really seems to be all that’s going on here.

    • Marty B.

      Tex, that’s precisely why the suit is against the PLCB (not Garces).

      Am I also the only one not particularly impressed with this place? Generally I like Garces, but this to me just seems to be capitalizing on the brand with products you can easily find elsewhere in Philly if you put your mind to it. The _only_ thing that seems unique about the Trading Company is the PLCB annex, so I’m not sure what spectacular loss Tex would suffer if the PLCB took its ball and went home if the court ruled in the plaintiff’s favor.

    • least important person

      Garces and Vetri are friends

      i grew up in California and when i bought beer and wine in PA the first time i thought i was in the dark ages

      when are the citizens of PA going to realize they are the ones that suffer and are the losers of having the PLCB system in place??

      It’s your rights people
      stand up for them or shut your mouth

    • http://noplcb.blogspot.com Lew Bryson

      Honestly, every time I hear someone defending the arcane practices of the PLCB — the Garces “store,” the automated “wine kiosks” they’re putting in grocery stores, the appropriately-named SLO ordering system — all I can think is “Stockholm Syndrome.” That, and “you must work for ‘em.”

      People: this whole situation is unnatural. You want to buy wine in a market? Put it on the shelves and sell it.

      Abolish the PLCB. Rewrite the Pennsylvania Liquor Code.

    «
    »