Pennsylvania

Privatizing Pennsylvania’s liquor stores has been a subject of debate for decades. Proposals in the past have been met with fear about the effects privatization would have on public safety and skepticism about the need for change. Most recently, Rep. Michael Turzai, Pennsylvania’s House majority leader, introduced a bill that would sell of state-owned liquor stores and provide more licenses for private businesses to retail liquor and wine and this time it looks like the proposal might have a chance.

The difference this time around is residents’ increasing frustration with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board’s draconian policies, and the growing body of evidence that privatized liquor sales would not adversely affect public safety. In fact, privatization would increase choices for residents and would actually bring more money into the state than the current government control system.

[click to continue…]

Most car thefts happen to unlocked cars. The government of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, thinks it can help. It plans to issue $25 fines to people who forget to lock their cars. First-time violators get off with a warning.

Bear in mind that enforcing this policy involves police systematically trying to break into peoples’ cars. First, that’s inherently creepy. Second, that’s a significant privacy violation. It’s also a Fourth Amendment issue. If an officer stumbles upon something illegal and decides to prosecute, he has performed a warrantless search.

It’s also a safety issue. If a thief decides to play dress-up and look like an officer, he could very easily steal valuables from parked cars in broad daylight and no one would be the wiser.

One more problem to add to the pile is corruption. A legitimate officer might be tempted to give himself a quick pay raise at a forgetful car owner’s expense. Policing for profit is all too common.

Better for the government to stay out of this one.

Philadelphians love our beer. Especially our little niche-serving craft-beers. The city of brewerly love has produced some of the countries best-loved brands and the by-our-Belgian-bootstraps attitude has inspired many brewers throughout the country. But from the recent behavior of those in charge of oversight for booze in PA you’d think we were a state of teetotalers. beer-week-philly-2

The problem is, when it comes to the regulation of booze there is zero competition. Since most of the people handling the regulations are appointees, citizens barely have a say in the matter. The result? A regime that regulates in a heavy-handed manner, that is inefficient, and performs a function nobody wants them to do.

In the free market a service provider that is inefficient or unable to perform the duties for which it was hired is replaced. However, when it comes to government oversight, there is little or no competition among regulators. Thus, even when a regulatory entity repeatedly demonstrates its inability to perform, businesses and individuals have no choice but to continue complying with these agencies’ deficiencies.

For example, take alcohol regulation in Pennsylvania and the recent bar raids in the city of Philadelphia. One bar owner, Leigh Maida, had three of her establishments raided raided by the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement last month based on a complaint from an anonymous source claiming that they were selling “un-registered beers.” The state of PA requires distributors of beers to register each brand they intend to sell in PA (for a fee of course). “something really crappy happened to us,” said Maida about the Bureau’s seizure of over 300 bottles of beer and 3 quarter-kegs.  As it turns out many of the beers confiscated were registered.

Maida claims that more than half of the beer taken was actually properly registered but the cops couldn’t find it on their lists because of “clerical errors” and “blatant ineptitude” between the police and Liquor Control Board (with whom he officers were deliberating with via phone.)

Case in point; Monk’s Café Sour Flemish Red Ale. The beer has been sold across PA at dozens of restaurants and distributors for more than seven years. The brand appears on the state’s online list as “Monk’s Café Ale” and because the names did”t match up, troopers seized 20 bottles and three kegs of the “illegal” ale from the three bars.

Police also took Duvel Belgian Golden Ale because it only appears on the list as “Duvel Beer”.

“After checking their inventory against the state’s official list of registered beers (which contains more than 2,800 brands) the officers seized four kegs and 317 bottles. Police calculations indicate that they now possess about 60.9 gallons of beer with an estimated value of $7,200.”

According to the Philadelphia Daily News State Police Sgt. William N. La Torre said that the beer would be kept in a secured location, as evidence, until the case is resolved, probably in six to eight months.

The burden of regulatory inefficiencies should not be shouldered by businesses. The Maida’s establishments has lost the ability to offer these beer for 6-8 months, if not permanently. By the time the bars re-acquire the brews they’ll potentially be past the date of best use, consumers who had wanted to purchase the brands would have been disappointed and the image of the bar has been severely damaged.

Regulations like this make it difficult for businesses to remain open in Pennsylvania. It’s to their credit that bars, brewers, and distributors can deal with the logistical and financial burdens of these regulations and continue to operate in spite of them. What is more harmful to Pennsylvanians: being served an unregistered beer or losing a businesses that serve customers, pay taxes, pay employees, and contribute to the state’s attractiveness for residents and visitors?
It’s time to axe the hangover regulations from prohibition and allow brewers, bar owners, and consumers to make their own decisions when raising their glasses.

Picture via Philly.com

“Supervisors in Dunkard Township say they are taking the steps for safety reasons,” reads a recent news article describing a new regulation. Regulators often cite safety to explain their latest doings. But it might be a bit of a stretch for justifying what Dunkard Township is doing: banning trick-or-treating.

That’s right. Regulators have banned a staple of childhood. Trick-or-treating is dangerous. Far too dangerous for children. Yet some parents were going to let their kids go anyway. Officials were left with no choice.

The government will hold a four-hour Halloween party to make up for it.

Yesterday in Harrisburg, rowdy unionists disrupted a rally held by two Pennsylvania state legislators to promote legislation to end project labor agreements (PLAs), which put nonunion contractors at a sever disadvantage, on state construction projects.  Under a PLA, an open shop contractor could be required to employ workers from union hiring halls, acquire apprentices from union apprentice programs, and require employees to pay union dues. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that “testy exchanges and pushing and shoving followed” the press conference. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Foundation’s Adam Cole says that he and his colleagues “overheard union members mentioning that they were being paid $26 an hour to protest.

For more on project labor agreements, see here.