Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

More Regulations for Ohio Wine Producers

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion More Regulations for Ohio Wine Producers

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #380708

    Geez
    Participant

    Mercurious,
    Discuss why bureaucracy doesn’t make sense to a bureaucrat? Big waste of time. It is administrative issue only in that it is a turf grab. No misunderstanding involved.

    #380709

    Bear
    Participant

    KSquared wrote >>

    catlover99 wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>
    Kinkead Ridge is by most metrics the top winemaker in the state; if Ohio is willing to annoy them enough to get them to relocate for such minor stakes, it really makes me question their commitment to quality Ohio wines.

    I think your comment about our commitment to quality Ohio wines is very unfair.

    I think Bear was questioning the state’s commitment to quality Ohio wines, not the commitment of Kinkead Ridge. I think it’s just an awkward sentence.

    Correct. Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

    I was just struck by the bizarre contrast between all of the fanfare surrounding Ohio Quality Wines and Ohio Wine Month and so on — which I think is great; Ohio’s wines are simply underappreciated — and a state bureaucracy that seems intent on selectively driving the best Ohio winemakers out of business. That’s schizophrenic behavior, even by government standards.

    #380710

    Bear
    Participant

    michaelcoyote wrote >>
    Not to presume to speak for Bear, however I’ve had opportunity to assist him in “quality checking” several bottles of Kinkead Ridge wines, and I’ve never heard a complaint from him yet. :-)

    They keep passing. But we believe in vigilance.

    #380711

    Mercurius
    Participant

    Geez wrote >>
    Mercurious,
    Discuss why bureaucracy doesn’t make sense to a bureaucrat? Big waste of time. It is administrative issue only in that it is a turf grab. No misunderstanding involved.

    But you will have a legislator there too, so if it doesn’t work, plan B is already in effect.

    #380712

    jackoh
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    and a state bureaucracy that seems intent on selectively driving the best Ohio winemakers out of business.

    Why would they do that?

    #380713

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    jackoh wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    and a state bureaucracy that seems intent on selectively driving the best Ohio winemakers out of business.

    Why would they do that?

    The Ag policy in the State of Ohio has consistently favored large-scale and industrial producers. While “intent” meaning the current law was written with the specific goal of driving out small producers is perhaps too strong, the mindset is that doing so (eliminating the small and artisan) is irrelevant and not unwelcome.

    A.

    #380714

    catlover99
    Member

    myliftkk wrote >>

    catlover99 wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>

    JimL2 wrote >>
    The tone of her email just got under my skin …
    But the Dept. of Ag. claims they’ve already been inspecting wineries without incident, they’re just expanding that. So to me it sounds like a whole lot of nothing, people complaining rather than talking to each other, complaining that a $50-$300 inspection fee and being forced to wash grapes (which may or may not be the case) will ruin their business.

    I agree that the tone of the e-mail wasn’t the best, and also that $300/yr, assuming this is an annual thing, isn’t massive in the grand scheme of things. The part of the e-mail that was actually the most interesting to me, and on which I might feel more sympathetic to KR than the inspection issue, was the denial of the auxiliary tasting room permit for the Scenic Byway location in Ripley. That represents potentially more than $300 in lost revenue for the business as well as more than $300 in lost investment for Ripley.

    I wanted to clarify the auxiliary tasting room issue. Tom Niehaus, our state senator, created the verbiage to allow this with our help. Two things shut it down; at a hearing at Liquor Control, it was implied we would not be allowed to sell wine by the bottle for people to sit and drink the wine, but only do what we already do in the tasting room, i.e. 1 or 2 oz. tastes. There was no point spending tens of thousands of dollars on a building to do the same thing we do in the winery. Also some wineries up north opposed this idea because they see auxiliary tasting rooms as competition… “not in my back yard”. We see it differently; the more the merrier, the more people you will get to visit your area. The chance of getting this passed expires Jan. 1, 2011, but frankly, we put so much effort into this that to have Liquor Control and wineries against us was disheartening. We just gave up. It not only hurts Ripley, it hurts small wineries throughout the state who could locate a tasting room in their town, in a mall, near a freeway, etc.

    How is the winery political opposition to aux. tasting rooms here a State of Ohio problem? Your plans ran into counter-interests who obviously thought your plans threatened their business goals, nothing more. I don’t really see that as a State issue, except to the extent that your idea lost the political battle versus the other winery interests in the context of State government.

    It just seems unusual that most states in the country allow this; in fact some allow more than one auxiliary tasting room. We feel it had a lot of potential for small wineries. Some of the wineries up north, who actually pay a lobbyist, feel differently, and that’s fine, that’s America.

    #380715

    jackoh
    Participant

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    jackoh wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    and a state bureaucracy that seems intent on selectively driving the best Ohio winemakers out of business.

    Why would they do that?

    The Ag policy in the State of Ohio has consistently favored large-scale and industrial producers. While “intent” meaning the current law was written with the specific goal of driving out small producers is perhaps too strong, the mindset is that doing so (eliminating the small and artisan) is irrelevant and not unwelcome.
    A.

    Do the small producers pose a threat to the large industrial producers? If not, why would anyone spend political capital in trying to eliminate them?

    #380716

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    jackoh wrote >>

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    jackoh wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    and a state bureaucracy that seems intent on selectively driving the best Ohio winemakers out of business.

    Why would they do that?

    The Ag policy in the State of Ohio has consistently favored large-scale and industrial producers. While “intent” meaning the current law was written with the specific goal of driving out small producers is perhaps too strong, the mindset is that doing so (eliminating the small and artisan) is irrelevant and not unwelcome.
    A.

    Do the small producers pose a threat to the large industrial producers? If not, why would anyone spend political capital in trying to eliminate them?

    It is more a confluence of interests. First we start with a State Ag dept that has always been hand-in-glove with big Ag. Strapped for budget dollars like all agencies, the State Ag dept is interested in maximizing revenues while minimizing effort/expenditures. Lots of small producers make that hard from a purely logistical perspective. Big producers make that easy even without lackadaisical or corrupt enforcement practices. Big Ag producers help write laws which come out as wins for them and for the Dept. No expenditure of political capital is required.

    A.

    #380717

    Bear
    Participant

    jackoh wrote >>

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    jackoh wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    and a state bureaucracy that seems intent on selectively driving the best Ohio winemakers out of business.

    Why would they do that?

    The Ag policy in the State of Ohio has consistently favored large-scale and industrial producers. While “intent” meaning the current law was written with the specific goal of driving out small producers is perhaps too strong, the mindset is that doing so (eliminating the small and artisan) is irrelevant and not unwelcome.
    A.

    Do the small producers pose a threat to the large industrial producers? If not, why would anyone spend political capital in trying to eliminate them?

    I don’t mean that that is their intent (=specific goal).

    I mean that they are intent on driving small producers out of business (=they persist in taking actions that are deleterious to the interests of small producers).

    They may do so out of ignorance or inertia or carelessness or…? Who knows.

    #380718

    Geez
    Participant

    In Iowa besides one federal and one state permit they have no others, from what I hear. They have no inspections either. They also can go to Farm Markets and taste, no permits. Even Farm markets in public parks and the like. Here in Ohio you can’t move without a different permit with all kinds of stipulations.

    #380719

    catlover99
    Member

    We have had several conference calls with Director Boggs and Terry Gearhart and their lawyers. They are not interested in our concerns. Their response to everything is “We have the authority.” This is why we are now working with the legislature to exempt wineries.

    #380720

    catlover99
    Member

    Boggs actually visited us a few years ago with Christy Eckstein from the Ohio Grape Industries Committee and told us how he wanted to support small business. We have also had conference calls with Chuck Kirshner. I was on the conference call with Terry Gearhart; I may be mistaken about Boggs being on a call, I will have to check with Ron.

    #380721

    Geez
    Participant

    I think they illegally gave themselves the authority. If the winery industry in Ohio was bigger and also cohesive they would be in court.

Viewing 14 posts - 46 through 59 (of 59 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE