Untimely response

It has been awhile since Scott Metzger responded to some points I had raised about HB 660.  I would like to take a second to respond.  First though, Scott had pointed out that I work for Independence Brewing Co. and I even list it on my profile for purposes of full disclosure.  But I would like to point out that these thoughts (and this blog) are my thoughts and for no end other than mine.  

The first item I would like to tackle is the effective date.  Scott mentions that all bills contain the provision outlined in Section 39 Article III so that this bill must become effective in September of this year or wait until September of 2013.  That is simply not true.  An effective date can be specified, the bill could be triggered into law by an event it could be contingent on a proposed constitutional amendment etc.  This is not a now or 2013 scenario. 

I had also raised alarm on the exclusiveness of the bill, particularly to Shiner, Miller, AB and hopefully in the near future Real Ale and Saint Arnold’s.  Scott’s reply essentially stated that his bill pertained to Brewpubs and that it included more breweries as opposed to excluding.  His argument is misguiding for two reasons.  The first is a definitional dilemma and the second pertains to duty.

Scott claims his bill is for Brew pubs and that it just happens to help more than the intended scope.  The problem is that Scott is talking about two different types of brew pubs.  HB660 essentially is changing the definitional parameters of a brew pub entity.  So to say “I wouldn’t work to initiate bills that affect business types that I’m not involved in.” is a bit of a misnomer as by changing the definition and controlling the parameters you do exactly that.  Now it may be the case that Mr. Metzger doesn’t believe he has a since of duty to the other industries and I will grant him that—but that doesn’t matter either.

The only duty any law maker has is to the public.  Business is a very important part of this state and it is also important to maintain and improve the laws in such ways that commerce has greater avenues afforded.  In the case of beer legislation, the best way to do that is to ensure that those whom wish to consume beer responsibly can do so easily and through many channels.   Exclusion of pertinent parties should be for good cause, for the good of the beer consuming public.  

HB 660

I support any legislation that advances the craft beer movement in equal opportunistic fashion.  I will also say out front that I support HB 660.  There are some issues that need to be addressed. 

Maximum production

As written 660 imposes a 75,000 bbl limit on production under a brewpub permit, excluding Shiner, Miller and Bud facilities(It’s worth noting Saint Arnold is around the halfway point of this mark). Why? If this bill is supposed to be an economic home run, why not make it a grand slam?  Why limit the size of a brewery that can obtain this new license?  Give Shiner, Miller and Bud a chance to tango as well, while allowing Saint Arnold to dip more than just a foot in. 

The problem with a limit is that almost regardless of the limit imposed it is going to suffer from being both too big and too small.  If it isn’t big enough, it’s just going to rub established breweries and brewpubs the wrong way.  If it isn’t small enough people will bitch and moan about X fold growth to potential brewpubs output without benefit to others. 

Timeframe

HB 660 will deeply affect Texas breweries and brewpubs alike.  Breweries will be faced with big decisions as to how much of the newly enacted law they want to take on.

 It’s not as simple as deciding, “ok we are open, pull up chair next to that bottling machine, here is your burger and beer, that’ll be 10 bucks. “  Point of Sales systems have to be implemented.  Buildings assessed.  Permits, tables, chairs, employees, loans, taxes, insurance……

It’s not just for breweries either.  Likewise brewpubs will need time to consider things like expansion opportunities, vehicle purchase, employees and learning the ins and outs of the retail system including delivering, invoicing, standing in the yellow lines and oh yes (welcome to hell) merchandising. 

September 1st is too early.  But waiting for another fiscal year is too long of a delay in my opinion.  Waiting ‘til December gives everyone more time to decide, act and file and will make a hell of a Christmas present. 

Don’t invite someone to a swimming party and then start playing basketball.  Or at least give them time to change lest some speedo may slap your face when I’m slammin’. 

HB 660 would be a game changer.  It would help Texas craft beer in a multitude of ways.  It is great for the consumer.  It will increase awareness of Texas beer in general. But don’t put a bill out that cracks the valve.  We aren’t gearing up for a freeze.  Open the damn thing up and let it rain like El Nino.  Comprende?  

Amend not abolish

If you read my last post on the 3-tier system you might think I want to rage against it all and tear down the whole system.  The truth is, by slightly modifying small portions of the TABC code we can make giant progress towards opening up healthy competition, generating additional tax revenue and providing better consistency in the law.

What should be added

Chapter 16 Winery Permit of the TABC permit, section 16.01 Authorized Activities:

5)     sell wine to ultimate consumers:

(A)  for consumption on the winery premises; or

(B) in unbroken packages for off-premises consumption in an amount

not to exceed 35,000 gallons annually

Add a similar section in the brewer’s permit. 

What should be changed

Sales of alcohol in general need not be restricted differently on any day of the week.  I understand that Sunday is special day for many people for many different reasons.  But we live in a much different society than we did when these restrictions were put into place.  We are a 24/7 world workforce now.  We have superstores, fast food, convenient stores and donut stands that never close.  Is it too much to ask for consistent alcohol sales hours?

The distinction between beer and ale need to be addressed.  Texas defines   beer as below 5% alcohol by volume (ABV).  Any thing above 5% is considered ale.  The problem with this law is that it makes Texan brewers look like a group of morons.  The definition of ale has nothing to do with ABV and everything to do with yeast selection. 

Enough is enough

Many may think that the later two points (Sunday sales, beer/ale distinction) are nitty.  But laws that don’t make since call in to question the entire body of laws and that is generally not desirable.   Limited brewery beer sales are healthy for brewers, wholesalers and retailers through increased exposure.  Opening up sales hours will prevent lost sales opportunities, which is better for the brewers, wholesalers and retailers.  Addressing the beer/ale distinction increases the sophistication of the Texas beer culture which is beneficial for, you guessed it, YOU.  Stay classy Texas