local politics

for the first time ever, really, i got involved in local politics. but not my local politics, those of menlo park. and the issue that compelled me to attend a city council meeting 15 miles from home, from 7pm to 10pm (and that was leaving early), was not universal health care, or gay marriage, or war with iran. no, i was there to oppose BevMo.

ultimately, my side lost. at first, i thought the opposition was on very shaky ground. the city lawyer explained that the nature of the council's job last night was to act not as legislators but as a jury, applying the facts to the law. the law stated that the use permit must be granted to bevmo if the services offered were necessary and convenient, and further, that the permit applies to the land, not the occupant, so it was not fair for the council to consider who was moving in, only that the occupant would be selling booze. that, at least, is my understanding of the conditions.

after the opening speeches by the city council's staff, who had found no reason to oppose, the opposition spoke, and brought to light the fact that there are already 17 liquor stores in menlo park, twice as many as neighboring palo alto (which, it was not said, is fer chrissakes a college town!), all of which are within 3 miles of the proposed location, and further, that the census tract (i guess that's a zoning term) in question allowed 3 liquor stores but already had 5.

now, the law said that the use permit may be granted if the shop was necessary (obviously not, if viewed as Yet Another Liquor Store) OR convenient. convenience, one opposer noted, is a slippery slope: it sure would be convenient to have a liquor store on EVERY corner!

the CEO of BevMo was actually there, and spoke, and seemed to be a very poor public speaker. there were passionate people on both sides with varying levels of articulation. one pretty well spoken supporter was in favor simply because bevmo carries more and better specialty sodas than he can get locally. several bevmo employees got up and recited the company line that they "did not consider bevmo to be a liquor store", and a following opposer derisively referred to bevmo as a "glassware vendor".

the public spoke for well over 2 hours. it was noted that more people in menlo park sent in letters of opposition to bevmo than actually voted in the recent election, some 3500 people, which seems to me like more than 20% of residents (3499 resident letters, i told hops, since i am not a resident).

by the end of it, i felt some sympathy for the council, who obviously had a tough choice to make. the opposition position was fundamentally anti-free market and protectionist, and not supported by current case law, while the bevmo position is pretty clearly in opposition to the image which keeps menlo park a destination on the peninsula, not to mention that it was unclear that bevmo would bring either jobs or tax dollars to the city. not to mention, 20 percent of residents supported the (possibly illegal) protectionist stance.

true to my word, i certainly won't be going to menlo park's bevmo, since to get there, i must currently drive by two larger bevmos. last week, i was in burlingame's bevmo, and, failing to find any top-shelf brandies, ended up in menlo park at beltramo's, where there were too many to choose from, even though the shelves were nearly bare from world series indulgence. i suspect that as bevmo's supporters said, beltramo's will do just fine, and the competition will actually make them better. i also suspect that after a couple of years of underpaying some poorly-informed young people and failing to differentiate themselves from the other 14 local purveyors of cheap wines, menlo park bevmo will be out of business.