liquor2.jpg
The state has already collected nearly $26 million in bids from the auction of 149 liquor stores after Washington voters approved a measure privatizing liquor sales. (AP Photo/File)

Some state liquor stores back on auction block

BY Josh Kerns  on May 16, 2012 @ 3:02 pm (Updated: 5:40 pm - 5/16/12 )

If you've ever wanted to own your own liquor store, now's your second chance. The state is auctioning off the rights to 18 outlets after winning bidders failed to pay their bills following last month's online auction.

"These are individuals who failed to come in with their final payments, so they've effectively defaulted on the bids they placed," said Pat McLaughlin, Liquor Control Board Director of Business Enterprise.

The state has already collected nearly $26 million in bids from the auction of 149 liquor stores after Washington voters approved a measure privatizing liquor sales.

The remaining outlets include several in both Seattle and Tacoma, including one location in Pierce County that garnered the highest bid in the online auction.

The rights will be made available in a live auction on May 24 at the Liquor Control Board Distribution Center in Seattle.

The state-run liquor system was formed in the 1930s in the aftermath of Prohibition. Voters approved I-1183 last fall allowing stores larger than 10,000 square feet to sell liquor, though smaller stores could sell liquor if there are no other outlets within a certain area.

Meanwhile, the Washington Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday over the constitutionality of the measure. At issue is whether the initiative violates state rules requiring measures to address only one subject, because it includes a provision to set aside $10 million for public safety.

Washington closed 14 of its liquor stores in April to deal with store employees leaving for new jobs as stores prepare to close and grocery stores prepare to pick up the slack.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Josh Kerns, MyNorthwest.com Reporter
Josh Kerns is co-host of KIRO Radio's Seattle Sounds (Saturday nights 7-8) and a digital content producer for MyNorthwest.com.
More Local News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (4)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    Snookered with that undisclosed 17% fee.
    May 17, 2012 5:17 am
    And now the State Supreme Court will judge the constitutionality of the (multi-topic) initiative itself. .......... Good luck on finding 18 more suckers.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleNative wrote...
    @ron
    May 17, 2012 8:03 am
    When I voted for I-1183, I clearly understood there is a 17% fee applied to the sale of liquor. Which, in a competitive environment, is much better for the consumer than the mandatory taxes and state markup that the state was using to gouge consumers.

    In a competitive environment, retailers can choose how much, if any, of that fee they want to pass on to the consumer. Before, there was no choice. Consumers had to pay the state tax on top of the mandatory state markup.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Yes, Seattle, I can read, too. But apparently a lot of bidders couldn't.
    May 17, 2012 3:56 pm
    Else, why was it a surprise to so many a couple of weeks ago ? ........................... But the initiative clearly violated the state constitution. So good, bad or down right ugly ........ ?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    The only thing I didn't like about it...
    May 17, 2012 2:05 pm
    Was the 10,000 sq ft rule. That seems very anti-competitive to me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }