Comments on: More Profitable Than Meth

By: Treva

Treva — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:37:57 +0000

I remember a guy that I used to do business with who had a liquor license that he figured was worth $100,000 to $150,000 (a really long time ago) because he could transfer or lease it to someone else and at that time the state wasn’t issuing any new ones due to lack of growth. What the state charges and what the actual “street” value is probably are not relative, but what do I know? He is a pretty sharp guy and I would bet serious money he won. The State needs to get out of the liquor business. Whatever happened to deregulation when you need it?

By: adam k

adam k — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:16:10 +0000

Mr. Logic,

I was merely pointing out that while Dave and Treva are not “extorting” attorneys, some one is.

Certainly the actual permit to sell liquor carries no value itself (or maybe 1/20th of a cent). It is the right to sell alcohol that is worth 150K. Similarly, a legal education carries little value as a commodity, you are right there. However, the true value of a legal education is the ability to practice law. ISB requires graduation from an ABA accredited law school.

Aside from the public/private issue, I think that looking at the goals and purposes of the organizations the ABA is more like Idaho State Constitution Article III, Section 26 while De Beers is more similar to OPEC. I see the basic difference as regulating the number of firms versus regulating the amount of supply.

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:27:43 +0000

And since the issuance of new licenses is dependent on population growth, the Guardian’s article is at least partly about growth. My comments:

We growthophobes are doomed to failure in our efforts to preserve the quality of life in Boise and the rest of Idaho. Here’s why:

1. People who have REAL money are still building hotels in the Treasure Valley. They realize that money talks and quality of life walks and that growth will continue. They don’t care because they have second homes in the Caribbean.

2. Illegal immigration will continue unabated. We do not have the political will to stop it (unfortunately).

3. Legal immigration will continue. We do not have the political will to stop it (unfortunately).

4. People (including many who shouldn’t) will continue to have, on average, more than one child per person (or two per couple) and population will continue to grow.

5. People will continue to migrate from the northeast to the west.

6. People will continue to vote for politicians who are dedicated to their destruction. Example: Middle Class voters voting for Republicans who cut taxes for the rich and raise them for the Middle Class. Example: Boise voters who voted for Dave Bieter because they thought he would do something SENSIBLE about growth. What a cruel joke.

By: Rod

Rod — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:03:51 +0000

We really need to de-regulate alcoholic beverages. The idea that the government can tell us when, where, what time-of-day and how old one has to be to have a beer or other alcoholic beverage is offensive. It is paternalistic in the extreme. Neither Team Dave, Dirk, Jim or Butch, or for that matter Dubya, is my father and I don’t like them telling me what to do or not do. I draw the line after they tell me not to kill or steal (and I don’t need them to tell me that).

By: john

john — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:31:57 +0000

Talk about control? If Bill Sali really wants to politic in the fashion of Helen Chenoweth he ought to have something to say about this sham of free market shenanigans. I heard some guy in Twin Falls owns a ton of liquor licenses just so he can lease them out. He kind of cornered the market so he can set the price of a lease. He opened up some sham bars to get around the law with one chair and table and one bottle of booze in a warehouse. I think he’s in the legal drug (pharmacy) business too. God created pot and they made that illegal. Isn’t Bill Sali on God’s side?

By: Mr. Logic

Mr. Logic — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:48:05 +0000

Adam–
Dave and Treva are talking about the ability to buy, sell, lease, that license like a stock certificate. The legal education can’t be had for $800 and then sold to a guy from down the street for $150K so he can use it.

It is more like the Diamond brokers controlling the supply from Africa.

By: adam k

adam k — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:05:03 +0000

I think there is a permit to practice law, its called law school, and it costs about the same as a liquor license.

They don’t have the same name but economists label both as “barriers to entry.”

By: Naznarreb

Naznarreb — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:01:34 +0000

Idaho’s control over booze comes from the State Constitution Article III, Section 26,

POWER AND AUTHORITY OVER INTOXICATING LIQUORS. From and after the thirty-first day of December in the year 1934, the legislature of the state of Idaho shall have full power and authority to permit, control and regulate or prohibit the manufacture, sale, keeping for sale, and transportation for sale, of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.

If it really bothers people, start an initiative to get this section repealed.

EDITOR NOTE–If you include an anti-gay clause, it will probably pass.

By: Treva

Treva — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:40:09 +0000

I always thought a liquor license actually cost a lot more than what you are reporting, Guardian.

However, I agree with Dave Said that there should be permits to practice law or run for office.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:47:51 +0000

Sad system it is. For those of us in the restaurant/hospitality business we are extorted to conduct our way of life. Attorneys grabbed ahold of this system years ago taught their doctor friends the tricks and with so much money invested I can’t imagine the system ever changing. Too bad we don’t value human character as a measure of who we issue liquor permits to.

I wish they would sell permits to practice law or run for political office, can I get on that list, I would love to return the extortionist love?

Dave Krick
Bittercreek/Red Feather