OK, so this beer/wine/spirit/ ah hell, let's just call it "liquor" store at the Wegman's situation has my attention. There's an article by Lindsey McPherson, who comprises I believe 50% of Patuxent's full-time reporter staff at present, that can be found here.
I am really not in favor of the prohibition on supermarkets and other stores to sell alcohol. I think it's a personal choice issue and well, if people want alcohol they should be able to buy it at their supermarket. And I don't think the local liquor store is really going to become that endangered, frankly, should state law be changed to make that happen.
Nevertheless, state law is state law, and it would seem to me that the license for the liquor store at Wegman's is being applied for under shady circumstances. Such as the fact that you have to go through other Wegman's property to get to the liquor store. And the fact that 90% of the owenership of this proposed store lies in a company headed by the husband of the President of Wegman's.
However, the petitioner himself is a minority owner in the store. I guess that's supposed to make everything more OK, but that doesn't do it for me.
So if this license is approved I think this creates a huge loophole in state law. And it would mean that, for example, the vacant storefront next to the Food Lion in Oakland Mills could be leased by Food Lion, and a liquor license established for it by the proposed proprietor, a Food Lion attorney with a 10% interest in the store, while the spouse of the President of Food Lion owns the other 90%.
Hmm, putting the deal in the context of a store that has been around for awhile, this deal looks and smells fishy. I betcha the Liquor Board would then turn it down. Should Wegman's get any different treatment?
Looking forward to the third hearing in this series, to be held soon!