No wine sales in groceries

The notion that allowing grocery stores to begin selling wine will prop up the economy is seriously flawed. Instead of helping the economy, it is more likely to only hurt it.

Gov. David Paterson has recommended allowing wine sales in stores where beer is currently permissible as a way to compel new revenue by means of taxes and licensing fees. The projected amount would be $105 million next year, tailing off to $54 million the year after that and $3 million the two years following.

The governor is trying to close deficits in the state budgets amounting to about $70 billion over the next five years. Next year's budget calls for total spending of about $120 billion. The millions expected in the wine initiative don't amount to much in a budget of that size.

Still, Paterson is counting on the cumulative effect of spending cuts and revenue boosts in many areas. It's just that figuring on new fees and taxes from expanding wine sales will be more than offset by the feared closure of businesses and resultant loss of employment.

It's entirely possible that The Last Store on Main Street, the organization of liquor and wine stores fighting the Paterson proposal, overstates the negative impact of the measure on their businesses. Members claim more than 1,000 of the 2,700 stores statewide would close if they had to share sales with grocers.

After all, even if big grocery stores began selling wine, their variety would have to be limited by space. It's doubtful many stores could accommodate the range that stores dealing exclusively in wines and liquors can feature.

In states where wine is sold in grocery stores — Massachusetts, for example — even big stores have little room for a very extensive wine inventory. Liquor and Wine shops seem to prosper alongside groceries very well.

Nevertheless, many liquor and wine stores are small and operate on a tiny margin, so any diminution of business would be critical.

Before the state gives serious consideration to expanding the number of outlets where wine could be sold, it should get a reliable assessment of the number of closings that would result and the effect they would have on the budget.

The new arrangement is touted as a boost for New York's vintners, affording them new outlets for their product. That seems a spurious claim, as anyone who wants a New York wine knows where to get it now. Stocking it in a grocery store may add some impulse buying, but it's hard to envision a sudden surge because of availability in grocery stores.

Furthermore, the police community opposes expanded sales, fearing accessibility to underage drinkers.

We applaud Paterson for looking into so many corners for places to save money for his beleaguered state and don't want to appear like naysayers at every suggestion. It's just that this one seems fallow. The relief envisioned would very likely give way to new, deeper negative consequences.