Comments on: Column: Arbor Vinous

By: sally m

sally m — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:22:44 +0000

Well that explains it! The “for consideration” phrase made absolutely no sense to me at all, so I just ignored everything that came after it.

The Duckhorn mystery was explained to me last night at Pacific Rim. Duckhorn is aggressively marketing their product to restaurants, selling it at huge discounts.

By: Joel Goldberg

Joel Goldberg — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:20:20 +0000

Sally, I’m no lawyer either — nor do I have any desire to justify anti-consumer wine laws.

But here’s what the LCC says: BYO at unlicensed restaurants is illegal, but we’re not the guys who enforce it. We’re only empowered to enforce beverage laws at the licensed places we regulate.

The law in question is MCL 436.1913; see the link in my previous reply. It specifically mentions “the sale of food” for “consideration” as a prohibited activity in connection with allowing BYO — along with glasses, mixers, and the like. That pretty much covers most restaurants.

What can the local cops do? Arrest those who break the statute, as with any other law.

Laws like this, both anti-consumer and decades behind most other large industrial states, make me no happier than they do you. And as HJG notes, some restaurants regularly choose to ignore them.

By: sally m

sally m — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:12:35 +0000

First of all, great column.

Second of all, I’m not a lawyer but this BYO argument has been circulating for a long time. The LCC has absolutely no jurisdiction here, and they admit it in their press release. They clearly say: “we can’t do anything about it, contact your local cops.”

So exactly what law are you breaking and what can your local cops do about it? If the restaurant isn’t charging you any money for: glasses, mixers, cover charge, corkage fee, etc., but rather just lets you bring in a bottle of your own wine, I am still trying to figure out, by carefully reading this press release, exactly what law you’re breaking. It eludes me.

From time to time, over the years, the police and the sheriff have been known–usually as a result of citizen complaints–to let BYO-friendly restaurant owners know that they’re being watched. No restaurant owner wants to be on the wrong side of the cops. Cops will also warn them that they’re leaving themselves open to lawsuits if anyone gets drunk and hurts themselves or others.

Okay, I’m off to the Pacific Rim for a glass of wine. (Honest! I am!)

By: Joel Goldberg

Joel Goldberg — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:41:30 +0000

HJG, it's definitely illegal for unlicensed restaurants to let you BYO -- here's a release about it from the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. But just because it's illegal doesn't mean that some restaurants aren't doing it every day... so better keep that name to yourself!

By: HJG

HJG — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:26:54 +0000

Are you all sure it is illegal to bring in your own bottle? I know of one restaurant in town that allows it openly, (for both beer and wine) and does not even charge a corkage fee. They do not have a liquor license. Maybe that is the key? (better not mention their name until the legality is clarified.)

By: DRW

DRW — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:11:28 +0000

good article, useful info. AA Chronicle needs some food articles, some restaurant coverage, and poof! you’ll be perfect!

By: Peter di Lorenzi

Peter di Lorenzi — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:54:32 +0000

Great column, Joel. The wine markups at many of the big-players in the A2 restaurant scene have always, I my humble opinion, been brutally cynical and obscenely unjustified by the selections involved, wine list accuracy [vintages, subregions, etc.], and the competency/training/ability-to-explicate of the staffs involved.
Keep up the good work. Now if only some of our zombielike reviewers would apply the same approach, we might actually equip diners with useful, applicable information.

Peter di Lorenzi

By: Joel Goldberg

Joel Goldberg — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:12:19 +0000

Clay, thanks for the complement. But I don’t agree that Michigan’s unemployed shouldn’t be reading an article like this, or perceiving and commenting on it through the lens of their situation. If anything, Anon’s comment reminds should us that not everyone, even in Ann Arbor, has the luxury to fret over whether they’re overpaying a few dollars for a bottle of wine when they eat out.

The wines at Pacific Rim sell for 84% OVER retail, which means they sell for 184% OF the retail price. Same meaning, but sorry if the phrasing creates some confusion.

By: Rod Johnson

Rod Johnson — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:11:37 +0000

Joel–ha.

By: Clay Johnson

Clay Johnson — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:17:17 +0000

Excellent research, and useful to boot! Great job Joel.

Hey Anon, why are you reading this (and complaining) if you are unemployed? Wahhh!

Joel, Psst! I think you have a typo in the “Wallet-Friendly” group. 184% doesn’t jive with the 84% cited above.

Keep up your insightful and helpful work!