Sounds like a price fixing conspiracy trying to keep lower priced merchants out of town. Isn't that illegal?

Established business interests aside, there's another valid reason to bring BevMo's Menlo Park bid into question - the connection between alcohol density and alcohol-related problems for a community (health, law-enforcement, violence, etc.)

If it's true that Menlo Park has reached a level of saturation with alcohol sales - then at the expense of the ever-touted rationale of "convenience", your community risks a variety of diminishing returns.

I hope your City leaders will examine the science behind this and incorporate whatever they learn into their decision-making. I also hope that the community is able to have a rational discussion about the very real costs and health considerations due to more alcohol outlets without automatically assuming that the questions are generated by "anti-alcohol" or "price-fixing" conspiracies. (Example: As a wine enthusiast and comparison shopper - who doesn't mind driving for great service - I find that Beltramo's, Draeger's and K&L often have lower prices on their wines than BevMo)!

The questions about costs to the community's current businesses and "health" seem appropriate and fair.

"Dan Beltramo shed some light on the mailer's origins. "It was sent by a group of retailers that feel strongly the city is best served by retailers already here," he said"

Doesn't every business feel this way! The reality is we live in a free market society, or so I like to believe. It's Beltramo's right to fight for his business, but, I don't think limiting competition is the answer. If the market is saturated then BevMo will open and the least competitive retailer will go out of business. And in the end the market will be more efficient. That's the reality of a market place. And, maybe that's what Beltramo is afraid of.

I think BevMo or whoever should be able to open whatever they want in America. If the community doesn't want it, then it will fail. Maybe Beltramo should consider selling his business and buying stock in BevMo if he fears he can't compete.

I am fully in support of this BevMo. I live quite close to this shopping center, and many of the store fronts are empty. Coupled with the row of empty car dealerships nearby, it makes the city look like it's slowly dying. I would much rather have a BevMo than leave the spot empty. And having it there doesn't detract from the charm of any other business.

Enough Already states:"If it's true that Menlo Park has reached a level of saturation with alcohol sales - then at the expense of the ever-touted rationale of "convenience", your community risks a variety of diminishing returns.

I hope your City leaders will examine the science behind this and incorporate whatever they learn into their decision-making."

It is the job of the free market to determine if the market for any given product or services is saturated. A city government is poorly equipped to make this judgment. Should a city decide how many florists, drugstores, tailors, or churches from which its citizens are allowed to choose?

More apples and oranges from the esteemed Peter Carpenter:
Liquor stores vs. florists, drugstores, tailors and churches.

C'mon, Peter - the folks on this forum ain't the same rubes you take advantage of on The Almanac's forum!

Just Wandering has wandered back in from the playground - six postings on six different topics in six minutes with not a single word of substance.

Enough said.