Classic quote from the Last Store scholars…
“Governor, you claim to understand our concerns about your job-killing plan,” the group called The Last Store On Main Street wrote in a response to Paterson. “Yet you come back with a proposal that amounts to sentencing us to death row and setting the date of execution for three years from now. In short, your ‘offer’ is just insulting.”

I know you are not gunning for me.

As Charlie explains, this gives stores 3 years to decide what they want to do…
1) Expand their biz
2) Make some “free” money
3) sit and wait

Anyway you choose, there is a clear plan that shows that no store will close in the near future because of this, empty-handed. They can always sell both medallions, if that is the case.

I would just like to hear someone say no and why.

I’m not gunning for you, I’m just trying to figure out if there is something new happening. I assumed the letter we got went out to everyone. I do remember thinking the language that referenced the medallions was a little unclear so maybe the change is subtle.

Josh

I would love to see that letter. The proposed 3 year moratorium that a supermarket cannot get a license without buying a medallion is news to me.

I wish I could locate my letter, but from the way you describe it, it sounds exactly like what I read in that letter.
We get two medallions, you have to have a medallion to sell wine, stores can hold on to the medallion or sell it off. What’s different now from the original proposal?

The reason they will oppose it is: just say no.

That is not true.

The concept of selling a second medallion and not having supermarkets be able to get a new license for 3 years, without this medallion purchased from a current store, is brand new.

I would love to hear reasons to oppose this new plan, from some of those that have a habit of “just say no.”