City of Burlington suing state over mini-mart liquor license
»Play Video
BURLINGTON, Wash. -- The bleachers teem with blue and yellow; the crowd stands six, seven or eight people deep. They chant so loud, the drums and the singing and the noise drift across the parking lot and onto the street nearby.
The sounds of the "Battle of the Bridge" cross-town football game in Burlington Friday night almost reach out onto Old Highway 99 where, perhaps, an even bigger clash is brewing than the one on the gridiron.
"I don't know what they have to do to stop it, but even if they brought a petition to this football game, everybody would sign it," said Sheryl Dunn, whose three kids are in high school here. "Nobody wants alcohol close to our school. That's just wrong."
Dunn is referring to the liquor license purchased by Hakam Singh, owner of the Skagit Big Mini Mart, about a quarter-mile south of Burlington-Edison High School. Singh bought the license at state auction and transferred it from an old, state-run liquor store to his private mini mart, said Brian E. Smith, communications director for the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
Although the mini mart is smaller than the 10,000 square-foot minimum for private liquor sales, the license can still be transferred up to a mile away, Smith said.
"Because you can't force someone who purchased a liquor store to get a lease with the existing landlord and vice versa, we had to make it transferable," Smith said. "It's transferable up to a mile away. This is a half-mile move."
That explanation isn't sitting well with Burlington Mayor Steve Sexton.
"It flies in the face of the intent of the whole initiative," Sexton said. "We were all told no mini marts when (the law) was voted on and passed by the voters. The Liquor Control Board is writing their own law."
The city of Burlington is now suing the state over the issue. While the mini mart is well beyond the 500-foot distance from the high school - as mandated for private liquor sales by state law - Sexton feels the store does not provide a large enough space to protect minors from purchasing alcohol.
"I feel like we've been sold out. I really do," he added.
For Singh, who immigrated to the United States 20 years ago from India, the suit is a slap in the face of the American Dream. He spent almost $250,000 to purchase the license, move the alcohol, and - now, due to the lawsuit - store it, while the issue is in limbo.
"I follow rules," he said. "Nothing (is a) problem here. I (am) very careful."
Smith said the state has never had any problems with Singh's shop, which has sold beer and tobacco for almost a decade. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Sept. 21.
"I feel that the citizens of Burlington have been sold out for $174,000, which is what the license cost," Sexton said. "I'm going to do everything in my power that I can to rectify that situation."
The sounds of the "Battle of the Bridge" cross-town football game in Burlington Friday night almost reach out onto Old Highway 99 where, perhaps, an even bigger clash is brewing than the one on the gridiron.
"I don't know what they have to do to stop it, but even if they brought a petition to this football game, everybody would sign it," said Sheryl Dunn, whose three kids are in high school here. "Nobody wants alcohol close to our school. That's just wrong."
Dunn is referring to the liquor license purchased by Hakam Singh, owner of the Skagit Big Mini Mart, about a quarter-mile south of Burlington-Edison High School. Singh bought the license at state auction and transferred it from an old, state-run liquor store to his private mini mart, said Brian E. Smith, communications director for the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
Although the mini mart is smaller than the 10,000 square-foot minimum for private liquor sales, the license can still be transferred up to a mile away, Smith said.
"Because you can't force someone who purchased a liquor store to get a lease with the existing landlord and vice versa, we had to make it transferable," Smith said. "It's transferable up to a mile away. This is a half-mile move."
That explanation isn't sitting well with Burlington Mayor Steve Sexton.
"It flies in the face of the intent of the whole initiative," Sexton said. "We were all told no mini marts when (the law) was voted on and passed by the voters. The Liquor Control Board is writing their own law."
The city of Burlington is now suing the state over the issue. While the mini mart is well beyond the 500-foot distance from the high school - as mandated for private liquor sales by state law - Sexton feels the store does not provide a large enough space to protect minors from purchasing alcohol.
"I feel like we've been sold out. I really do," he added.
For Singh, who immigrated to the United States 20 years ago from India, the suit is a slap in the face of the American Dream. He spent almost $250,000 to purchase the license, move the alcohol, and - now, due to the lawsuit - store it, while the issue is in limbo.
"I follow rules," he said. "Nothing (is a) problem here. I (am) very careful."
Smith said the state has never had any problems with Singh's shop, which has sold beer and tobacco for almost a decade. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Sept. 21.
"I feel that the citizens of Burlington have been sold out for $174,000, which is what the license cost," Sexton said. "I'm going to do everything in my power that I can to rectify that situation."
Has this store passed all "stings" (not selling beer or cigarettes to under aged)?  If so, then I don't see what the problem is. Â
Nothing to see here. Move along. Store owner has done nothing wrong. And guess what folks, peeps no matter what age will find 'drink' no matter what.
Singh needs to counter sue.
So, Singh has sold beer there for nearly 10 years, and they had no problems with that. Doesn't beer contain alcohol?
Â
And as for their *claim* that ".... It flies in the face of the intent of the whole initiative," Sexton said. "We were all told no mini marts when (the law) was voted on and passed by the voters. The Liquor Control Board is writing their own law ...." - they need to go back & read the initiative. It never said no mini marts - it DID say, however that they would be allowed if they are the only store within a certain distance from other locations.
Â
Get over it. If they think that kids in high school "won't drink" if it's not there, they are sadly mistaken. Kids DO drink, and they will do so whether the mini mart stocks the liquor or somebody else does.
Â
I think Singh shoulod counter-sue, and go for the costs of storage while the matter is in court.
So here's the problem I have with this-
Â
There is no proof that this liquor store is putting anyone at any greater risk than any previous method of sales -
Â
quite the contrary. Washington Liq Control Boards own enforcment division has stated that their number of infractions since the new law went into effect is actually lower than before.
Â
In this case specifically, the Burlington Edison High School had a STATE RUN liquer store about a mile away prior to this, so the change is really insignificant.
Â
Let the man do business... if he screws up, fine him and punish him. If he really screws up, use the existing enforcment mechanism to revoke his license. If you're worried about your kids drinking, try stepping up and being a parent - not blamig a small business owner for your own failings!
There is no playing by the rules any more because there is no rule of law. Obviously this guy didn't have the right connections.
Wow, IÂ bet if the liquor store was not so near the school, the children of Burlington would never ever drink. The man is playing by the rules, maybe the parents should tell their kids to play by the rules and there will be no problem!
So concerned with liquor stores being next to schools. How many of these same parents have liquor in their own cabinets at home? Just more government intrusion into people's right to make a living.
The store owner has followed the law to the T so he should just be left alone. He hasn't had any issues with selling to underage kids in the past. The citizens of Burlington have no right to try to prevent this store from selling liquor. Put up a rack behind the register like they do with cigarettes. Can't get liquor until you show an ID. Done.
Â
Kids are going to get their hands on alcohol. I did when I was in high school. You know where I got it from? I would take it from my parents or a friend's mom who would go and buy us beer (we lived out in the country, she would take all our keys, we had to stay the night, and she let us do it under supervision).
Â
If kids wanna drink, their gonna drink. But a majority of them aren't getting their alcohol from the store!
What a waste of tax payer money, they are going to lose, this guy hasn't done anything illegal. Someone should boot this idiot of a mayor out.
I knew there would be loopholes. We all did. The KOMO forums were full of comments that there would be ways around everything and what twe hought we were voting on would not be what we actually got. So why did it pass? It did, so we now have to live with it.Â
Letâs see if I got this right.  Mr. Singh bought the license legally from the state through a legal public transaction (auction). By law, to make things fair and legal, he could not be compelled to purchase the building or be compelled to rent from the previous landlord.  The law provides for the transfer to a business location up to 1 mile from the original state location which was nowhere near 10,000sf., he moved it ½ of that. The law as voted upon provided for that. The new location is over 2.5 times the minimum distance from the school, allowed by law. The business not only sold alcohol (beer and wine), but had no historical problems. At this point there seems to be nothing wrong here. So the issue is that the store is too small to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors? If that is the case, no store the size of the old state stores could be allowed to operate. If you happened to live in a rural area with no building of 10,000sf, housing a business which chose to get a license to sell liquor, once the little state store closed you would need to drive to the âbig Cityâ. The law took that into account and made provision for smaller locations, both new and relocated old stores. That was all in the bill as printed in the voterâs pamphlet. No body pulled a fast one on you. You either chose not to read what you voted on, lacked comprehensive skills and were therefore unable to understand what you read, or were just unable to read. Take your pick, it was all there right up front. Now quit harassing this hard working small business owner and let him get on with his completely legal business.Â
Â
Is the mayor up for re-election?
You were "sold out" when you voted to privatize liquor sales. Those who knew better tried to warn you - OH NO you said - "we're tired of the government running liquor sales blah blah blah." Â Now you're reaping the rewards of your ignorance. Â Happy drinking!
I don't think it matters how the law is written anymore because there are always those out there who take issue with anything and everything no matter what. The posters here aren't ignorant.
What you believe is what you believe and some people just don't happen to agree with you that's all.
 @fyrefawx Yes we are, cheaper liquor, and I don't have to make a special trip.
 @fyrefawx Exactly! Just like the legalizing of casinos in this state. Now they're every where and a blight on our communities. Progress is not progress at all.Â
Lol at this,
Â
"Sexton feels the store does not provide a large enough space to protect minors from purchasing alcohol."
Â
So, all this time it was the store size that protected underage kids from purchasing alcohol. Â I always thought it was the ID and age requirement. Â If all laws are followed, then no underage kids will be able to buy alcohol, regardless of where it's sold.
Â
This whole thing is a non-issue. Â
Â
However, this is a huge missed opportunity. Â Once again, the government finds a problem and tries to 'fix it' by punishing those at the receiving end. Â How about instead of punishing the mini-mart owner for legally selling alcohol and for the 'potential' of underage drinking, we instead spend some of that attention on alcohol awareness for the kids at the school nearby. Â Educate the kids and the parents and we'll all see better results now and in their futures.
Â
 @Landshark Go Sharky! Well said.
I don't understand all the hullabaloo. It was done legally. The store previously sold beer and wine. It's a none issue for me except for parents not wanting to take responsibility for their kids.
I did not support the privatization of liquor sales. I saw no problem with the state running the business and the profits the state general fund received from them. But the people voted and they voted to privatize. However, as alluded to elsewhere on this thread, I think many folks voted based on what they were "told" rather than reading the actual law text of the initiative. Had they done so, I am not sure they would have approved this. Now that they have, we live with the consequences.
 @EMDF9A you do realize the quickest way for underage drinkers to get booze is by raiding their parents or their friends parents stash?
@EMDF9A The government has no business in the business of retailing of ANY product. PERIOD. I bet if we could see and audit the books of these Government run liquor stores we would see it was a losing business for the state. Beer and wine was able to be sold virtually anywhere...and there was no issue...but suddenly you bring in hard liquor and it somehow becomes an issue. Underage drinking was what most were concerned about.  As I've posted many times in this story....since when do teenagers care about beer/wine vs. hard alcohol? They don't...and they usually get it right from their own homes. That whole issue is/was a Red Herring..
@AmFuzzy Why do you feel the state has no business retailing anything? Can you provide some reasonable arguement other than your gut feeling? I have no problem with the state providing a retail sale of certain regulated items, like Alcohol (and after November MJ)
 @EMDF9A From Wikipedia:Â
Â
The United States Postal Service (USPS), also known as the Post Office and U.S. Mail, is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. It is one of the few government agencies explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.Â
Â
Until 1971, it was part of the Presidential cabinet and the Postmaster General was the last person in the United States presidential line of succession.
Â
The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters.
I think you should be the one to try again. The USPS is not a government entity, but a private corporation who's major shareholder is the US government. It is not now, nor never has been funded by the government. It has, for over 200 years operated using the funds it raises via paid postage.
US Postal service is not a governmental entity? Try again.
Â
The USPS is funded and underwritten by Congress and operates as a psuedo-govermental department, although not under the executive branch.
ID/Licensing is not a business, it is an essential service of the state. The post office is not a government entity and has been providing an economical and essential service for over 200 years. (The current fiscal issues with the USPS has NOTHING to do with inefficiancies but rather Congress' mandate that they fully fund their retirement program out 75 years. They have to fully pay for future retirement benefits of future employees who havent even been born yet!)
Again, I have no issue with the government running certain regulated retail esnterprises, like the sale of Alcohol.
I can, lets look at all of the government run business and agencies and how well they work. When was the last time you had to get a License or ID Card. And we will not even get started on the Post office.
Liquor is alcohol, just harder than beer. The story says the mini-mart had no previous known problems; why would there suddenly be more problems because of a liquor license he bought? The mini-mart guy should just be left alone.
@DMT ABSOLUTLY...Â
Â
Gee whilikers i hope they survive the onslaught of one mini mart up there. Im sure their angelic little cherubs havent figured out any other way to get alcohol. It sounds like this problem could be solved with an investment in parenting classes in Burlington.
pos mayor; disgusting
Its not the size that counts its the motion in the ocean that makes the world go round. Oh and money lots and lots of money.
Â
Â
I am thinking nothing should be sold close to schools except coffee, milk,and fresh veggies. In any city, state in this country. Buy hey who am I kidding?
@Cindertang Why? Close? How close? 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile, one mile? What's the point? We want schools close to our families...which means we will likely have Safeways, Gas Stations and other stores also close to our neighborhoods and families. People need to learn to be parents and stop expecting the Government to force businesses out of business.Â
The people have really been sold out.. The bill was sold on the idea that a free market would create competition and the price of booze would go down. The state never got out of the business. The 27% tax that was added on is the same percentage that many businesses look at for labor costs. I read an article that said it was only for 3 years and to cover $ that the state was losing. I wonder what reason/excuse they will come up with at the end of the 3 year plan? And for those who think I am just disgruntled over paying so much more and why don't I stop drinking, I did quit drinking. Can't afford it anymore. If I lived closer to Oregon I would join in with the folks who have been raising the income of Oregon close to $1 million a month this summer; which is revenue that Washington lost.
 @Tierce Really? The people have been sold out? Are you referring to those same people who approved this measure at the ballot box? Those people who should have read the actual text of the bill maybe? Perhaps if more people had read the initiative rather than relying on tv ads, they wouldn't be so upset about the cost of liquor now. You can thank Costco for the smoke and mirrors.
No offense, but I read the initiative, voted for it, and am perfectly happy.
Â
I'm rather tired of everyone saying that all of us who voted for it got duped. Most of us who voted for it are perfectly happy - happy that we can buy alcohol when and where we want - and happy that the state is no longer in the liquor slaes business. The fact that is costs a little more is of little consequence to me.
 @jepaulsen Agreed, not all who voted for it got duped, that's a given. However, in response to the OP, I stand by my comment. He/she obviously *was* duped, as they expected the price of liquor to decrease. Again, I point the finger clearly at Costco for the smoke and mirrors. And I'm tired of hearing the complaining, seriously. Maybe next time they'll actually read the voter's guide that arrives in the mail...
I think the ineptitude lies in whoever conceived, authored, and signed off on these transfer provision specifics. Leave the guy alone - the kids that are already lost causes here in Skagit County are hardly short of resources
Oh my god. These people need to get over themselves. If kids get their hands on liquor, it will more likely be from their own parents liquor cabinet. What a bunch of puritan ninnies.
 @Bellevue Scott Exactly...I remember being a teen, we'd go to friends' houses that practically had a full bar! Bottles everywhere - and of course, we'd try to do (what we thought was) the smart thing and try to draw evenly from the bottles because we'd thought the parents wouldn't notice stuff going missing. Get this - we were only called out once.
Â
We just stopped going to that house for parties.
 @Bellevue Scott P.S. Having alcohol at home like that is far more tempting than stuff at the grocery store!
Oh the horror of it. The booze moved  a half mile closer to the high school. Suspend any off campus privileges, and lock the doors during school hours if that makes you feel better but leave this law abiding store owner alone. Those few kids who want to get drunk are going to find a way to do so whether the booze is across the street or across town. Don't punish this guy for the perceived actions of  a few juvenile delinquents.Â
When we approved the privatization of hard liquor sales I thought we where told it wouldn't be sold in gas station mini marts.
@leftcenterright I think it was your own misunderstanding...it was clear these were allowed. Besides...they all sold beer and wine anyway. Since when do underage drinkers CARE if they get beer and wine vs. hard alcohol?
 @leftcenterright Since when is voting on what "we are told" the most logical thing to do? We should all be responsible for reading what we vote for, and when this doesn't happen (most of the time), nobody should be able to cry foul when someone finds a loophole. Mr. Singh is following the laws, and he legally purchased the license for the liquor rights. If he did his research and Mayor Sexton did not, I think the city of Burlington has much more to be concerned with than an intelligent mini-mart owner.Â
How about parents stepping up to the plate and teaching their kids that stealing is wrong and the consequences aren't worth it. Have a conversation about alcohol abuse while you are at it.
if it fits all legal conditions it looks like the city will be the looser when singh sues the city for lost profits and mental distress. Also the city will loose in court with the state and the taxpayers will pay twice.
Aren't there bigger fish to fry in Burlington? Â I'd assume that most cities now (or always had) liquor stores within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of schools, mainly due to the sizes of the cities. Â A properly licensed store, that performs rigorous age verification shouldn't have a problem. Â Easiest solution, move the liquor behind the counter (as many places do that are in bad neighborhoods), that should prevent any underage people from buying or stealing it.