Which is More Family Oriented, a Semi-Automatic or a Beer?

An Overheardian shares her thoughts about the proposed beer and wine sales in University Park.

This is a family oriented community and there is no reason to sell beer and wine in Snider Plaza.

OK. Gotcha. But if we’re going in that direction, what reason is there to buy a semi-automatic weapon in Snider Plaza? There must be a good one because we’ve got two locations in the same family oriented half mile. I’m just sayin’.

38 thoughts on “Which is More Family Oriented, a Semi-Automatic or a Beer?

  • April 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Good point. I’m sure James Tucker would love to that store close up shop. And all restaurants should be forbidden to serve alcohol, too.

  • April 26, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    Very good point, but that’s why they pay you the big bucks, right?! Seriously, I don’t understand why selling wine and beer at Tom Thumb Snider Plaza is any less family-oriented that selling it at Tom Thumb HP Village. Their neighborhood hasn’t suffered for it, unless everyone in HP is now a secret Satanist and I just didn’t know about it. I’m also certain the Snider Plaza clerks will be big-time vigilant about checking ID and it would be SO much more convenient to be able to do all shopping in one store.

  • April 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Clearly he loves guns. How else does one keep whippersnappers and rapscallions off one’s lawn? Seriously though, he told me he thinks alcohol sales will only lead to more dangerous repercussions. He cited “colored people at the lunch counter and chinamen at the soda fountain” as examples. Then he mumbled something about the Soviets, “that bastard Kennedy”, and Joe McCarthy. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to help him revulcanize his tires and put some oil in the street lamps.

    Ah, it’s good to be home.

  • April 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    The give-away that you know nothing about guns is the use of the fearful descriptor “semi-automatic”. Is a semi-auto somehow more threatening, dangerous, scary, icky than oh, a full-automatic? A revolver?
    You would be hard pressed to find a semi-auto in the first shop as they specialize in twice shoot double guns, aka, double barrel shotguns and rifles. Nothing very semi there. And why would you imply that guns are not family oriented? Many families shoot skeet and sporting clays together or targets with – gasp- semi-automatic pistols. Many tens of thousands more innocent people die or are traumatized by alcohol than firearms. In fact, this country has defended itself from tyranny of all kinds with – guns. Not sure how many battles we have won with beer and wine.

  • April 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Mother of word, that self-righteous (tyranny was the high point, for me), logic-fail, filled gun rant was like getting a sex talk from an STD doctor. You really ruined it for me, Easy E.

    She is not saying you shouldn’t be able to buy guns in Snider Plaza. Rather, she is questioning those commenters who are Loony Tunes enough to think that the mere selling of alcohol is dangerous to the community. It is reasonable to assume such persons might also fear the sale of .50 cal sniper rifles (JA had one, it was $15k, i wanted it) and AR-15’s.

    Finally, while I don’t have the numbers, I think it is accurate to say that we beat the Native Americans with beer and wine. Maybe if we pass the law you can open Eric’s Things That Have Won Battles Emporium, featuring the finest whiskeys, guns, and blankets infected with small pox.

  • April 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Ahhh, but how many battles have been AVOIDED ALTOGETHER because the opposing sides sat down and talked it out over a beer or a glass of wine???

  • April 26, 2010 at 5:43 pm


    I resent your inference. Not ALL people in HP are Satanists. ; )

  • April 26, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    OMG–My concern is about the blood stains dripping down the front door of the gun shop.
    However did I miss that incident in the police blog?

  • April 27, 2010 at 11:04 am

    I have asked to what purpose do we change a law and possible (note I said possibly) change the character of our community? The biggest response had to do with bringing tax money that is going to HP and Dallas into the UP coffers. I asked several regular bloggers to cite a study that shows how much revenue UP is lost to these other taxing entities so we all can make an informed decision. Nobody has provided this information yet. Why don’t we leave the mud-slinging for the upcoming state and federal elections and try to have a reasonable discussion about this issue.

    Again I challenge anyone who would like to see beer and wine sales or package liquor sales in UP to pony up some studies that show how much we will benefit by it.

  • April 27, 2010 at 11:10 am

    I have asked to what purpose do we change a law and possible (note I said possibly) change the character of our community? The biggest response had to do with bringing tax money that is going to HP and Dallas into the UP coffers. I asked several regular bloggers to cite a study that shows how much revenue UP is losing to these other taxing entities so we all can make an informed decision. Nobody has provided this information yet. Why don’t we leave the mud-slinging for the upcoming state and federal elections and try to have a reasonable discussion about this issue.

    Again I challenge anyone who would like to see beer and wine sales or package liquor sales in UP to pony up some studies that show how much we will benefit by it.

  • April 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    @Matt- a)Just curious who appointed you Merritt’s apologist? b) Name calling is something they try to break sophomores of. I take it you haven’t passed the 10th grade as yet?

  • April 27, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Using the examples cited in the report that Max refers to, that means that the City of UP is missing out on somewhere between $0.5M and $1M in tax revenue each year. None of the three case examples fit UP exactly, but you can extrapolate. The report does not include residual effects, such as loss of grocery receipts when a consumer buys additional items elsewhere, nor does it include the effect on business. You should also see this blog posting from Amy Severson (Sevy’s) a few days ago.

    The last paragraph from the Perryman reports says While there are certain social issues to be considered in a wet/dry decision ….

    In my opinion, one-half to a million dollars in tax revenue to the City of UP hires crossing guards, puts in new lights, and could re-do a whole lot of parks (tongue-in-cheek).

    The social issue, as highlighted in the original blog posting, quoting Merritt’s reader, is indeed the issue.

    PS: Max for Mayor!!!

  • April 27, 2010 at 1:00 pm


    Very generic study. I don’t think you can make a very good case for extrapolating Case 1 into UP’s situation. We are 200% of the per capita income. It certainly would not account for changing demographics of a university town. It doesn’t take into account education levels which has an impact on alcohol consumption. It is obviously funded by the alcohol industry. Are their any other studies that you can point to done by a local agency, maybe by our own city government?

  • April 27, 2010 at 1:15 pm


    If I can find a generic study, like the Perryman study, that suggests that video slot parlors would generate income for our town would you be on board with that? How about New Fine Arts-Park Cities; that would also generate additional tax revenue. At what point in time do we say no to those industries that dangle tax revenue in front of our faces as if that is all that matters.

    The Perryman study cannot be extrapolated into our situtation for the very few reasons I outlined above. If I could see the raw data I could probably come up with a few other problems as to extrapolation to UP.

  • April 27, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    @James, you ask for a study and one is provided for you. You dismiss it as irrelevant. Then, you ask the same question again. Why don’t YOU find a study that estimates the amount of tax revenue UP could expect? You’re argument is weak. Cleary if UP’s per capita income is higher, one would expect higher end beer/wine consumption…which translates to more dollars. Second, given the small geographic boundaries of UP, do you really think that someone who wants alcohol today will not drive a 2 miles or less to Dallas or HP to get it?

    I guess it really comes down to the fact that I don’t appreciate people like you trying to restrict other’s ability to purchase alcohol. Frankly, it’s none of your business whether an adult wants to purchase and consume alcohol.

  • April 27, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    @James, as the Perryman study says, and I quoted, “certain social issues to be considered”. Video slots parlors and open porn business issues are no-brainers for me and any discussion of those dilutes focus on this specific topic of alcohol sales.

    I acknowledged that none of the three generic case examples fit UP perfectly. But even in the smallest case, it was $0.5M in tax receipts. For me, I had absolutely no idea what the range of numbers could be before Max pointed us to that study.

    Could that study have been funded by the alcohol industry? Sure. Are the numbers stretched one way or the other? Eh, probably. Even if they are 2x or 3x off, that’s still decent enough numbers to make it worthwhile.

    As @Gagree notes, come up with one that shows the other side if you think this one is prejudiced.

    So let’s take the tax revenue issue off the table and agree, I hope, that it would generate a small, but reasonable amount of money for the city coffers.

    Then, it becomes a social question. Personally, I think the current restrictions are a bit arcane. So let’s take a vote and majority rules.

  • April 27, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    The study is irrelevant. Clearly, if UP’s level of education is higher you would expect LESS drinking going on. The study is weak and general. So maybe I don’t appreciate people like you keeping me from going to a video slot machine gaming hall that I might want to set up in Snider Plaza. And what about a greyhound park. I might want to do some betting on the dogs so lets turn Smith Park into a dog park. Where do we put our foot down for the sake of the anything for a tax dollar people like you?

    The fact of the matter Gagree NO ONE IS PREVENTING YOU FROM PURCHASING OR CONSUMING ALCOHOL. Centennial, 7-ll, 2 Tom Thumbs to name just a few are within 5 minutes of any part of UP.

  • April 27, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    I’ve heard people say in comments on blogs that the thought of picking up a 6 pack at the neighborhood grocery – well, the kids might see you do that. Horrors! Then don’t take your kids to a restaurant where others might be consuming alcohol in their presence either.

    Others claim it will mean a beer barn on every corner – I argue only if they can afford the property and property taxes that go with the location. I mean on my corner, Tom Thumb, 7-Eleven and Whole Foods will all probably start stocking beer and wine. This will be something any new place will have to compete with. The consumption isn’t going to increase, only the purchasing patterns will change.

    I’ll trust an employee of Tom Thumb to card my kid over an employee of R&D Liquor Mart any day.

  • April 27, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    “Clearly, if UP’s level of education is higher you would expect LESS drinking going on.”

    Good one. I have my master’s degree. Just about all of my friends and associates have at least a bachelor’s degree and the majority have advanced degrees. We all drink.

    Newsflash Tucker, it’s 2010. Like matt said, let me know if you need help putting oil in those street lamps.

  • April 27, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    @Eric 1.) i am lower case matt, please address me as such. I was not serving in the role of apologist. Merely explaining the structure of logical argument to a intellectual inferior.

  • April 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm


    We aren’t just talking about drinking, but drinking less. Unless of course you, with your master’s degree, down a six pack every night like a blue collar worker might. Apparently the only 2 reasons for changing the current law is tax revenue and convenience. If we are talking tax revenue then THE AMOUNT YOU CONSUME BECOMES AN ISSUE. A more blue collar, less educated community will likely consume more alcohol then one in which there are larger numbers of college grads with white collar jobs. A community with less religious institutions might also consume less alcohol. The number of families with children under 12 years of age can also be a variable in alcohol consumption.

    So when you lump all communities into a study in which only 2 variables are looked at (size of community and per capita income)like the Perryman report you have a very general study.

    Your logic mirrors Gagee’s enough to make me wonder if your the same person. Save yourself the trouble of trying to remember all your names and just stick to one.

  • April 27, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    To those who think that the Perryman Study is an important study for this issue:

    Please look thru the list of communities that have used this study in a quest to change their laws. Ask yourself: What does UP have in common with these communities?

    City of Lancaster
    City of Rowlett
    City of Corsicana
    City of Woodway
    City of Niederwald
    Hays County, Justice of the Peace, Pct. 2
    City of North Richland Hills
    City of Allen
    City of Brownwood
    City of Seven Points
    City of Mesquite
    City of Carrolton
    City of Georgetown
    City of Palestine
    City of Bellmead
    City of San Angelo
    City of Arlington
    City of Lindale
    City of Lewisville
    City of Garland (Largest city in Texas to go from dry to wet)
    City of Sherman
    City of Willow Park
    City of Melissa
    City of Sachse
    City of Mansfield
    City of Waco
    City of Texarkana
    Polk County
    Angelina County (2nd largest dry county
    to vote wet)
    City of Wylie
    City of Murphy
    City of Denton
    City of Richardson
    City of Irving
    Town of Flower Mound
    City of Longview
    City of Midlothian
    City of Rockwall
    City of DeSoto
    Brazoria County
    Village of Wimberley
    Village of Salado
    Angelina County (anti-Prohibition)
    City of Anna (anti-Prohibition)
    City of Ennis
    City of Terrell
    City of Jasper
    City of Tyler
    City of Wilmer
    City of Hutchins
    City of Fort Worth
    City of Irving
    City of Waxahachie
    City of Weatherford
    City of Greenville
    City of Lorena
    City of Southlake
    City of Malakoff
    City of Cleburne
    City of Winona
    Smith County JP 4
    City of Rusk
    City of Buffalo
    City of Paris
    City of Emory
    Town of Westlake
    Lubbock County
    City of Burleson
    Denton County, JP 5


  • April 27, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    @James Tucker: I think it’s far more accurate to state that if you live in a blue collar neighborhood you are more likely to have a liquor store or bar located on the corner. Not that blue collar people are more likely to drink – unless you want to provide the link to the study that backs up your statement.

  • April 27, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Here are two of the first papers I came across concerning blue collar workers.



    I love the way the phrase this:
    Three main hypotheses about the role of the workplace in alcohol use and misuse emerge from this model. H1) Occupational structure and workplace constraints-resources contribute independently to alcohol use and misuse. H2) The effect of workplace constraints-resources on alcohol use and misuse are moderated by the position of the agent in the occupational structure. H3) Agent personality, family, and social network outside work modulate the effects of workplace constraints-resources on alcohol use and misuse.

    To me it means that what you do and where you do have an impact on your drinking, What level of responsability you have will change your drinking habits as will your personality, family and peer-pressure.

    To be fair I can also find studies that suggest that white collar workers drink more then blue collar workers.

    The point, once again, isn’t that person A or person B will drink more. It is that the Perryman study is a general study that lays out two variables to determine the amount of money a community might make by becoming wet. The problem is that there are a wider variety of variables that could lead to a different outcome. The point of listing all of the taxing entities that have been “clients” of this study is to show the extreme diversity of those communities with our community.

    If there are people in this community who think they can make some money on Beer/wine or package liquor sales then let them provide a study, performed on our community, that shows the advantages of that change. If it is their desire, it should be their risk. I see no usefulness in the Perryman study when it comes to UP.

  • April 27, 2010 at 10:49 pm


    My apologies for not responding to your post. You must have slipped it in when I was responding to Gagree. It is an important point however. Lets look at another example that is less of a no brainer. Congress, when it passed health care reform, had original set up a tax on all plastic surgery as a way to generate income. Of course, the medical lobby, among others, had a cow. They started spreading there cash around and got it removed. What went into its place? A tax on tanning bed visits. Tanning salon owners don’t have a lobby. They are also looked on with some disdain because of a connection between sun exposure and cancer.

    Just because you like the look of a plan to generate tax revenue doesn’t mean that everyone else is comfortable with it. Maybe people would be more comfortable with it if City Hall was calling for more revenue. Maybe someone telling residents that it would help lower property taxes would help. I haven’t heard either of those things being said by our elected officials.

    Once again we have a group of people, namely the UP Merchants Association dangling the “extra revenue” carrot in front of everyone, expecting us to follow like donkeys. Not going to happen. If the UPMA wants to get this done then they are going to have to come up to me with something besides an irrelevant study and a clipboard with a petition on it.

  • April 28, 2010 at 9:48 am

    James Tucker,
    The slippery slope argument is getting old.
    If we allow alcohol sales, Sodom and Gomorrah? Really?
    We already had prostitution on Fondren. We have borderline child abuse on the youth sports teams. Can’t you see how moving alcohol sales 1 block closer could alleviate these situations? Moms would be looser. Dads would chillax on the fields more.
    City Hall could re-paint and re-letter and makeover all the parks and signs over and over again w/ the added tax revenue.
    I could care less either way…I like the added tax revenue angle, but what restrictions would be placed on locations, etc.?
    One last thing JT, for someone that harps on higher edumacation, work on yur speling!

  • April 28, 2010 at 11:15 am


    The slippery slope argument never gets old. We are seeing it now with Obama and socialized medicine. When you are dealing with the free-wheeling anything goes crowd, or the big government statists you have to watch the slope constantly.

    Appreciate your comment on my spelling. Another part of reading and writing is comprehension which you obviously fail to grasp. No where in my posts have I mentioned that moving from dry to wet will lead to Sodom and Gomorrah. I haven’t commented on what changing our status to wet will lead to. Neither have I “harps on higher edumacation”. I made a comment that educational levels of a community might be a variable that is ignored in the Perryman study. The only one who was tossing up higher education was @Flab/Gagree.

  • April 29, 2010 at 11:15 am

    James et al, Please see the excerpt from the Feb 23, 2009 HP Town Council Meeting on our website http://www.openupforup.com
    regarding the safety of selling all forms of alcohol in close proximity to Bradfield Elementary school.

  • April 29, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Under Benefits;

    Sales Tax Benefits: Your supposed sales tax benefit is an estimate and based on a study that I have already discussed. I fail to see how handing over “$300K” to the city without concomitant agreements to reduce taxes in other areas is a benefit. All it does is give the city more money to not get things right in the first place if you know what I am talking about.

    Retail and Restaurant Benefits: Every restaurant and retail business in this city opened up with a complete understanding of the rules. These rules are not new and have not been “forced” on them. You are creating straw man with your argument.

    Personal Privacy Benefits: Thanks for insulting the waiters and waitresses of our retail establishments. I am sure they appreciate your trust. People who have an issue with handing over their DL should carry their Club card with them. Another straw man.

    Under Resources:

    I can see that HP stats can carry some weight since they are a township similar in size and population. However, UP can’t claim some of the same facts that HP can. There is a least one instance of a citation given, in the last year, to a mom picking up her kids while in her cups. As Merritt has pointed out on this very blog, that the 2 martini lunch is kind of common at Sevy’s. Do I think that changing the law to allow the free flow of alcohol in UP is going to cause an increase in alcohol-related offenses? I don’t know.

    My point is that everyone has bought into the system we have now and I need more reasons to change then what you are bringing to the table.

  • April 29, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    As an aside Max, I am kind of shocked that you would cite the Perryman study in regards to the sales tax benefit, considering the business you and I are in. I use nutritional supplements in my practice. When I read a study on a new drug or a new use for a supplement the first thing I do is try to ascertain who paid for the study. A new drug study paid for by a pharmaceutical company? Have to take it with a whole shaker of salt. Same thing with supplements; if all the research on the supplement is done by the company that manufactures it then the study is questioned. The reverse is also true; a pharmaceutical company funding negative research on supplements that supplant their billion dollar drug is not credible. Then you have to look at the questions that are being asked. Most of the time the outcome of the study is already determined by the person who paid for it and as such the only questions that matter are the ones that move the study in that direction. You know this. This Perryman study has only one use and that is to move a dry municipality to a wet one, and as such is suspect.

  • April 29, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    James — One quick question, what connection do you have to the alcohol wholesale or retailing industry?

    To me, this is an economic and free-market issue. It makes no sense to continue to support an archaic alcohol system with multiple tiers of distribution in place that only serves to increase costs to consumers and make middle-men rich. Why should businesses in UP have to compete with one or two hands tied behind their backs? This scheme only serves to make our businesses less competitive, less profitable, and the tax base in the city smaller FOR THE BENEFIT of the oligopolistic alcohol industry.

    Look at what the alcohol distributors are trying to pull over in Congress with HR5034. They have a protected market (I believe six companies control 50% of the wine distribution in the United States) to allows them to make unwarranted profits, and then they plow a portion of those profits into relentless lobbying efforts to elected officials to pass laws that continue to protect their market. I’d love that business, too.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m generally pro-business, and I’m loathe to suggest that governments tax more in lieu of corporate profits, but the corporate profits here stink. They hurt our community, they make goods that people are going to purchase anyway be (i) more expensive, or (ii) purchased outside of city lines. Let’s end this stupid scheme and let the free market operate in UP.

  • April 29, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    A true free-market, no middle man getting any money,would be to have these businesses brew their own beer and ferment their own alcohol. Is that what you are asking? I don’t see the addition of any middle man in the selling of beer or wine in UP. Just different middle men. Instead of getting your beer at the Centennial you get it at Tom Thumb. Where are the additional layers? Do you think that because the Hyer Tom Thumb is selling beer that Centennial is going to lower its prices? I doubt it. Are we going to have a liquor wholesaler come into UP so we can buy what we need there? That would remove a layer. Are we going to make UP restaurants BYOB? Because certainly paying their markup on the alcohol can constitute a layer as you’re defining it.

    As for businesses in UP competing with their hands tied they knew the rules when they set up their businesses.

    AND WHAT THE HECK DOES A LIQUOR MONOPOLY HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? You sound like my kid, trying to muddy the discussion with gobbledy-gook.

    This sounds to me like its an issue of some retailers wanting to make some more money and they are twisting and turning trying to find reasons why the community should go along with them.

    To answer your question about my connections to alcohol or retail whatever that is a no.

  • April 29, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Do I think Tom Thumb selling beer will have any effect on the price that Centennial charges? Uh, yeah, it’s simple economics, James. Competition will drive down prices, on average, every time. Leaving in place a protected market like our current law will reduce choice, raise prices, and dampen our tax base. Every time.

    I’m fine with businesses purchasing from a middle-man, if that is their choice. There are plenty of valid business reasons to work through distributors. Archaic protectionist laws aren’t one of them. And yes, I’m fine with restaurants offering byob, if they think that maximizes profits. Let the free market work.

    And, you are way, way off on your “different middle man” argument when it comes to restaurants. Our scheme makes local restaurants buy alcohol at retail. Other restaurants not subject to these laws get to buy from a wholesaler. Our city should eliminate the retailer in this chain, because there is no reason for them other than to suck up profits that would otherwise accrue to the restaurants to keep or pass on to customers.

    Gobbley-gook? Did you just try to win your argument by calling me a kid? Really? You don’t see the relevance of yet another example of anti-free market laws that protect alcohol industry profits at the expense of customer prices and choice? It is the same playbook. I think that is a far more relevant point in this debate than listing dozens of other towns in a bazarre and elitest attempt to bluff UP residents into thinking the our alcohol laws are the one thing standing between us and Waxahachie.

  • April 30, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I buying a house on Purdue next time. Sounds like a great street to live on.

  • April 30, 2010 at 8:08 am


    The point of the gobbledy-gook remark was not that you are talking like a kid but you are throwing out pointless, irrelevant factoids to make yourself sound smart…And you call me an elitist.

    You want free markets? lets open up the market to anyone who wants to sell any kind of alcohol. You want free markets? How about property rights. Lets let Huddleston do what he wants to with the Chase property.

    After reading your last post I realize you know more about this then you let on. Are you one of the retailers or restaurant owners that will be the prime beneficiaries of this change?

    The only people that are going to benefit from this change are the retailers and restaurant owners. There will be a little more money for the city to spend putting up more signs we don’t need. There will not be much change in price of the beer and wine that people buy because realistically we are only talking a couple Tom Thumbs.

    What will change is the character of our city.

  • April 30, 2010 at 9:52 am

    James, I have no commercial interest in this issue, I’m solely a consumer and resident, i.e., parties that are completely deprived by these laws. I come off like I know more than I let on … huh? What have I “let on” … other than very reasonable arguments that these dry laws are bad for our city. Consumers, restaurants, and UP tax revenue would be the prime beneficiaries of this proposed change, not alcohol retailers. Indeed, I said above that the protected profits that retailers “earn” from restaurants that are unjustly prohibited from purchasing alcohol at wholesale ought to go away.

    And the idea that moving to a wet system would “change the character of our city” … that’s an unbelievably absurd argument. One just has to look at our brethren south of Mockingbird to know that is just not true.

  • April 30, 2010 at 10:13 am

    We decided to buy a home in UP because the sale of booze in HP has shown those people to be of ill repute. Scummy HPers.
    James Tucker for Head Quaker!!!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *