Security Reservations on OpenTable Checks

UPDATE:  Friday, 8/20 - Upon checking the OTRestaurant.com website, the company has changed their pdf poster.  I have removed the copy of the original poster from this website as well.

But I have to say, this is a poorly constructed mechanism to inform their members about important financial transactions.  And there is a very important difference between OpenTable Restaurant checks and Traveler's checks, even if phony, a Traveler's check will never be returned to the payee.

*********

I was visiting the OTRestaurant.com website today (this is where businesses conduct their OpenTable relationship) not logged in, just a "regular Amy" checking it out, and noticed an alert in red ink:

"An Important Message About OpenTable Dining Checks"

Who knew that OpenTable was getting in the "traveler's check" business, I guess it's their way of capturing part of the gift certificate market, or maybe they issue their rewards this way.   Anyhow, it was news to me, we haven't had one presented before at Sevy's Grill.

Apparently anticipating greater numbers of these checks during the holiday season, they were letting us know to train our staff should one be presented as payment.  Continuing, they added the next really helpful message:

Useful Facts about Dining Cheques

1. Accepting Dining Cheques is part of the OpenTable contract.
(Does this seem a little pushy for a company that makes money off of their  client transactions?  I mean it's not like they're VISA or anything).

Attached was a PDF file "an informational poster to download and print and post for your employees".  And upon downloading it, this is where the SHIT HIT THE FAN. 

Photocopied onto this PDF file (completely accessible to anyone who goes to OTRestaurant.com) was full pictures of the two types of checks OpenTable is issuing - including their bank account and routing numbers.

So let me get this straight - me, member, paying YOU fees, must accept a check that YOU HAVE PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE TO ANY ONLINE THIEF WITH A PRINTER AND A SUPPLY OF BLANK CHECKING PAPER?  Don't think so.  Because when we are presented with this old-fashioned payment, we have to deposit it, and won't find out for days that it is a forgery. 

And I have a reservation with that, "Security"!

UPDATE:  So admittedly I'm not the best at explaining a situation, re-reading the above is confusing even to me.  So to elaborate, let me put it in the form of a fictional story scenario.

AMY'S BEDTIME NIGHTMARE STORY
One night at a restaurant, not so far away, a random guest pays for all, or a portion of his dinner check with a "Checque" [please].  The server takes it to the back of the restaurant (it's printed as payable to any Member restaurant) compares it to the check photos on the "informational poster" provided, and hey, it's a match.  Thank you sir and have a good night.

The check is deposited in the bank, and a few days later the restaurant is informed that "sorry", it was a forgery.  Downloaded off the internet - in fact the company website itself, graphically perfected, printed on blank check paper by a ring of (fill in your favorite ethnicity here) thieves, who printed thousands of these checks, selling them over a 24 hour period for 25 cents on the dollar on an internet sales site, called Teebay.

By the time the first check is redeemed, refused and returned to the restaurant, the site is closed down and the restaurant eats the lost money.  Or OpenTable does.  Which would it be?

Amynomics 101 - The Silly Economics of Dry Dallas

I took Economics 101 (at least twice) in college, and would like to talk about the economics of the wet vs. dry argument in Dallas.  Everyone thinks it's about a change in packaged wine and beer sales and sales tax revenue, or that it's about how much restaurants (licensed as clubs) spend to keep up a club membership database.  Chump change, guys, don't be like a pack of dogs distracted by Squirrels on the sidelines.  Into this argument let me introduce Amynomics 101, surely no Nobel Prize winning thesis, but an aspect of the economic consequences of the current law that are as relevant, if not more so, than those being currently discussed.

First, before we get into a discussion of what is best for Dallas, let me state that I'm very much for a system that controls alcohol consumption - especially when it comes to 1) minors and 2) over-imbibing and driving.   I agree with a system that works towards controlling both, while allowing those who don't break the rules the freedom to enjoy something that is completely legal.  I'm an accountant who loves to "follow the money", with a Bachelors of Science in Business Management from UT-D.  I am no economist, but for 20 years I've been working in the industry, trying to figure out the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, only to repeatedly find that just when you think you know it, you don't.

I completely agree that the sales tax revenue of retail store beer and wine (Squirrel - it's not really about sales tax revenue!) will vary little (relative to the total) between the wet-dry lines, but in these times can our city really afford to turn away any positive cash flow?   What will happen is a gradual shifting away from traditional Dallas "wet" area liquor stores to more grocery store/corner store purchasing within Dallas.  As beer and wine sales are siphoned from these high density liquor strips, there will be fewer stores that can survive on the leftover hard liquor sales.  Something like that seems to be going on up on Inwood Road in Addison since the suburbs surrounding them have voted themselves modified wet - lately I've noticed many shuttered stores that previously sold liquor, beer and wine.

It seems a break-even economic proposal unless you consider the cost to Dallasites who currently have to travel the extra distance to purchase (what in most towns is available on their neighborhood corner) beer and wine.   But Amynomics deals with the larger financial issues and how these ancient restrictions limit Dallas' economy, taxes, club licensees and their guests. 

Because of the way Texas' over 70 year old law was written, restaurants licensed as clubs in dry areas (Squirrel - it's dry, but it's not really dry!) must purchase their alcohol they sell through a 4th tier retail package store, paying as much as 20%-30% more for their inventory as a restaurant located in a wet area who can buy directly from a wholesale seller.   Highest in markup is wines, and a restaurant's alcohol sales are typically around 50-60% wine sales.

So based on the June 2010 report issued by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (which was mostly payments for the month of May), I added up all the club licensees Mixed Beverage Gross Receipts payments and came up with the following numbers:

3 sample pages of June's TABC report,
yellow highlights are Dallas club licensees. 
Addison has zero club licensees.

Dallas clubs paid:  $1,061,163 in Mixed Beverage taxes in June, which mathematically translates to $7,579,736 in liquor, beer and wine sales. (These are not bars, they are restaurants, hotels, Veteran's organizations, country clubs.  They have strict requirements of how much alcohol can be sold relative to the amount of food sold.)   Let's say purchasing costs of alcohol for those sales is 30% of total sales, a pretty typical industry average and for purposes of this argument, by removing the 4th tier, let's use a lower 10% savings rate of overall purchases.

Wow, that's a savings estimate of $227,392.  For one month.  Almost $3 million per year.  Consider that this savings would be returned to Dallas business owners and their guests through lower prices.  And it costs the city NOTHING in lost tax revenue.  Higher cost-of-sales necessitates higher prices - an anecdotal story is my comparison of Merryvale Chardonnay at Houston's Park Cities vs. Addison. A $1 higher sales price per glass equivalates to a 10% buying premium for the same product in dry Dallas.   But laws of Economics (general laws, not just mine) dictate that as costs rise, demand drops, or in other words people will find ways to limit the higher costs of dining  out - by either doing without, by searching out BYOB places, by drinking at home, or by dining in a lower cost area like the 'burbs.   All of which results in lower taxes to the city.

Higher production costs means thinner margins for those businesses, which translates to less incentive for new businesses to grow in the area. This is huge, no, HUGE economics.   Between sales taxes, mixed beverage gross receipts taxes (14% of alcohol sales), payroll, property, unemployment and franchise taxes, few businesses generate tax-revenue-per-square-foot like a full-service, full-bar restaurant.  So dis-incentivizing these maxi-tax generating businesses is like saying "Thanks, but no thanks".  No problem, (they say), looking to the modified wet suburbs to the (north, south, east west) where the mix of residential and commercial rivals that of any Dallas neighborhood.  Leaving Dallas residents to figure out how to keep our libraries and community centers open without raising property taxes on our homes.

Entrepreneurs will always look to locate in the areas where they have the greatest opportunity to succeed, lower costs mean more money to pay back bank loans or other financing that helps open these very businesses.  Making the suburbs a better breeding ground for success means jobs and sales tax revenues move out of Dallas.  Add to the mix the high density of suburban residences and commercial areas that can help support community-based restaurants out there, and you have a higher chance of payback success outside of the city.   I am unqualified to put a $dollar amount on this loss of future business development, but am certain to my very business core that it is NOT insignificant.  Or else the suburbs would have stayed dry, I think.

Wet/dry politics is tied to land (Squirrel-it's not just Addison landowners that likes wet real estate!), in Dallas like no other large city in Texas.  Austin, San Antonio, Houston, El Paso......which are dry?  None.  One factor facing a modified-wet Dallas, where wine bars or beer bars would be allowed on local corners like in other cities, is what happens to the old "wet".  As retail sales and restaurant sales move to other more residential locations, the density of these businesses in traditional wet strips becomes less populated, reducing rental income and inviting redevelopment. 

Until then, what, pray tell, invites redevelopment of a scuzzy swab of industrial late-night clubs and liquor stores when a landlord can "churn and burn" differing bars or stores - as one fails and another tries to re-open to success. Keeping these strips of areas as "exclusive sales belts" limits regeneration in some of the precincts most needing a redo.  For now it also keeps cities like Addison in fireworks on the 4th of July, and promoting their local restaurants through city-sponsored advertising campaigns.

There are some incidental costs to dryness that are more nuisance than than prohibitive (Squirrel-these are not the real fight!).  For one, club restaurants have to transport their own alcohol from the sellers location to theirs, sometimes they do this themselves, or there are a few companies specially licensed to do this for a fee.  So while a beer truck delivers to Centennial Liquors, a block away from Sevy's Grill, Rathbun's or Hillstone, they are prohibited from crossing a 70 year-old line to deliver to our doors.  And then there is the membership database, most of us utilize Unicard which has a modest monthly cost considering the service they offer.  However both are just other expenses deducted from profitability, vs. a wet neighborhood (to the north, south, east, west of Dallas); another cost for an entrepreneur to consider when opening the restaurant of their dreams.

Let me digress about another economic point that seems unseen by the public (Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel!).  I am all for alcohol enforcement when it makes sense.  But tell me, does having TABC agents (licensed to carry guns, no less) go through boxes of membership records from the (months or years) past make sense to anyone?  Because the last time we had an audit, two agents spent 4 hours going through boxes of membership records going back 3 years. 

Perhaps, like me, you'd rather they'd find out the whys and hows of wrong-way drunk drivers on the tollway vs. who came in to have a gin and tonic at Sevy's bar six months ago.  To the agents credit - they are only following what the law requires, but in these economic times, is it wrong to question the entire premise of this rule of law and how our enforcement of alcohol is misguided?  Is it time to do away with the requirements of club membership simply based on the fact that it is a waste of taxpayer's money?

So Amynomics points you to keep the eye on the real prize, the higher costs and loss of growth and tax revenue to the city only results in profitibility to a few - and certainly not the Club restaurants, guests or citizens of the city.  If we want to see strong, vibrant restaurants in our neighborhoods we must keep up with our suburban neighbors, or risk losing business development to them.  Unlike many in these times, our industry is not asking for government financial handouts, only for fairness in laws, from which all of Dallas could benefit.

Restaurant Scam Underway In Dallas

I heard about a variation on this scam on the news (yesterday?), wherein "city inspectors" were showing up at suburban businesses saying that they were there to perform a necessary inspection and the business would have to (immediately) pay a fee to the inspector if they wanted to "pass".  It may have been a local station, or it may have been on TXCN about another Texas city, in which case the scam has now moved to restaurants in Dallas.

Yesterday at the restaurant we received a call from the "city health department" saying we were due for an inspection, referring to Case #90908, and they would be coming by to perform the inspection.  Apparently they didn't realize we'd just HAD our city inspection, so Sevy's called the City of Dallas to ask "What's what?".

The city replied that it has received three other calls today from restaurants in Dallas who have received these same calls.  So if they happen to come by, do us all a favor.  Take them in the kitchen and yell to your staff, "Estos chicos son de Arizona y que 'El Tri' lleva su ropa interior madres."  Then just leave them in the kitchen with your guys while you call the police.

Takeout: Why. Even. Bother. ?.

Subtitled:  Lucky For Someone I Don't Review Restaurants.

How To Cook Disenfranchisement

There seems to be many, many recipes as evidenced by news this morning that a state judge has turned over Denton County's vote to become wet, held last May and approved by a majority of voters.  A similar thing happened a few years ago in Dallas (but before we got to vote on it) when a state judge threw out a (certified) Dallas petition seeking a modified wet change in a JP district.  And with the new petition to become modified wet, I've been advising, "Don't hold your breath", even while record numbers have signed to change the current laws in the City of Dallas.

Because it really doesn't matter what the voters want in this issue.  If you look at the Denton case, the lawsuit to overturn the vote was funded by the City of Frisco.  And if you look at the Dallas petition from two years ago, our county commissioners refused to hold the vote or fight the state judge's ruling.  And not one city council person has come out to state that they think changing Dallas to modified wet would be good for Dallas - in fact at the Zoo event last week one emphatically was against it.   Go ahead, poll them, I bet you'll find the majority either don't want change or are completely apathetic to the issue.

So you end up with a bunch of citizens who repeatedly sign a petition to allow a vote to change a law.  Each time it's shot down by the political bodies who (for a variety of reasons) find ways to not change the law.  So I guess my question is, if the majority of people want change, but are blocked from voting on it (or their vote is thrown out) over and over again, who is really the disenfranchised?

Sounds like a good reason for a party, a disenfranchised Tea/Coffee/Martini Party.

From The Missouri Bureau

13 Years Ago This April

May 7th marks the 13th birthday of our "baby" (more like triplets some days) Sevy's Grill, but in April I always remember the anniversary of another, less happy occurrence.

It was during one of those epic Dallas rainstorms on the afternoon of April 25, 1997 when Steven Ridge was driving in his truck with 10-year-old Shamanic Johnson and 6-year-old Steven Ridge [Jr.] who had just been picked up from school.  He'd been drinking Crown Royal, testimony at the trial later revealed, but that wasn't a surprise to the police and medical personnel who attended him that day. He blew a 1.6 on the breathalizer administered at the accident site, and in the hospital his blood-alcohol level tested at 1.2.

On Samuell Boulevard, just across from the cemetary, his car crossed the center line, sliding an entire football field length in the hard rain and coming full force against the front of a 1 ton crew cab being driven by Ken Demko of Demko Construction. Ken was our general contractor, he and his team had been working furiously for several months to get our restaurant open by the date of May 7th.  In a moment of time, that became unimportant as Ken ended up in the hospital with a broken sternum, broken leg, broken knee, broken ankle, face ripped apart by his teeth when they went through his skin - he traveled by wheelchair for the next month and a half.

But Ken considered himself lucky. His truck had been hit with so much force that the motor ended up almost entirely in the cab; conscious but broken he was aware of all the events as they unfolded. The other driver was ejected with enough power to blow him out the window and practically into Ken's truck, but he was able to walk, stand and talk to a neighbor who was passing the accident scene. The two kids, unbuckled and unlucky, were killed from the trauma they sustained.

Steven Ridge was charged with one case of intoxication manslaughter, and got off scott-free. Family members told Ken that he had no remorse in the deaths of these children, his attitude was that they were his - to do with whatever he decided. His wife took him back into their marriage. And the trial failed to convict him.

According to Ken, the breathalizer test administered at the accident site was thrown out as improperly administered. The test in the hospital was thrown out because Mr. Ridge wasn't properly read his rights. The rain storm made it difficult to pin the loss of control of his truck on the fact that he had been drinking. The emergency room doctor who was (allegedly) struck by the (allegedly) drunken Mr. Ridge was never called on to testify, nor were any of the other medical personnel who attended him. There was testimony about the consumption of a quantity of Crown Royal prior to the accident, but that was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a guilty verdict.

Now all that may have been not enough to send that man to prison, and in some cases this might be rightly so. But it doesn't change the facts that two kids were dead, and that alcohol and driving were involved. Every year in April I remember the deaths of those children, just as their families do, just as Ken (and his family) does - he keeps a green notebook in his office with the details of what happened. And I hope everyone else who reads this will remember them as well.

Everybody's on Facebook These Days

Write a check on a closed account?  That's a felony, dude, you owe us $160 for that bad check.  Nobody at the restaurant seems to know you, but moi, recently turned ON to Facebook figures you're there somewhere.  And I was right, and so I feel lucky it was only $160, someone is obviously pissed off about the $12,000+ you scammed.

Stephen Michael Luedders, you've been a very, very bad boy.  Shame on you.

Would Everyone Please Stop Chewing On Unicard?

Many people who hear the word "Unicard" think the whole alcohol sales/club membership issue revolves around having a gold (well mine is anyhow) Unicard in their wallet or purse.  It has nothing to do with this at all.   State law mandates that people who drink in a non-wet area join a club formed by the restaurant, Unicard provides a record-keeping service to these neighborhood spots that want to serve a frozen margarita or glass of wine, respectably and legally.  The Unicard facilitates the transfer of information - in other words it substitutes for your drivers' license, keeping your information private from the server.  In fact, the costs for a restaurant to utilize Unicard to maintain it's membership records is much, much less than doing the recordkeeping in-house.  It's other things that the current law cost the restaurant, guests and taxpayers much more money that gets me cooking.

When we opened Sevy's Grill almost 13 years ago, we utilized pre-lawyer Janet Ivy to assist in filing the voluminous amounts of paperwork needed for the application for a license to serve alcohol.  Her father, David Ivy Sr, sat in his office with Sevy and I to go over the services that Unicard offered and how it could keep us in compliance.  He founded and owned this very large service corporation, yet had the time to sit with us and explain things - people don't forget that kind of attention.   I can't speak to how well other services compare, we've never considered switching to anyone else.

But let's face it, the time of requiring people to sign up to drink in a spot has become too costly to maintain in a state that's seen a drastic change in it's demographics since it's Alcoholic Beverage Code was written over 60 years ago.   More and more clubs means more and more records that the TABC sends agents to review, we have to decide if our tax resources are better spent keeping habitual drunk drivers off of the road.  As long as the law mandates membership, the TABC agents are hired, devoted to the task of verification.  Because it is the law.   They even go out and do undercover "stings" to see if clubs are following the membership laws - fines are very, very high for failure to do so.

A much higher cost, born by the restaurant and it's guests, is the restriction from "clubs" being able to purchase their alcohol from a wholesale seller.  Because it must pass through an additional seller, the cost of product is significantly higher for a business located in a dry part of town.  The consumer, unknowing of this restriction is left with the perception that the business is more expensive, when they may be only trying to cover their higher costs. 

The most salient reason for changing current law is because our suburban neighbors have already done so.  It has not brought havoc or destruction to their neighborhoods, in fact it may have been partially the reason for a bar to close down in Plano.   But if Dallas fails to do so, there will be "pockets" of successful restaurant areas, downtown, bordering the Park Cities, along the Golden Corridor, Bishop Arts District, but the majority of development will economically be driven to the areas that cost an entrepreneur the least while generating the most revenue.  And the suburbs have that mix of homes and offices now, they don't need to come to Greenville Avenue or Addison to have a fun evening.  But much of Dallas must still travel to these areas, in some cases giving our neighbors sales tax revenue our city could desperately use right now.

This whole vote on wet/dry (I have no doubt the signatures will be obtained, the question is whether the state and county will allow it to be voted on, two years ago it was stopped) will change how many businesses will operate.  Retailers who currently sell to clubs will see a loss of those who switch to wholesale sellers.  Landlords in traditional "wet" areas will have property highly desireable for bars (where a food-to-liquor sales requirements are much lower), but will have to be more competive for restaurants looking to move to a more "domestic" neighborhood.  And from what I'm reading, Unicard will change to service restaurants and bars in other requirements of following the Texas Alcohol Beverage Code.

So to recap, "Dry" doesn't mean you can't drink - you just need a membership.  "Dry" is something that our neighbors have given up (and most major cities in Texas don't even have).  "Dry" means we taxpayers pay for agents to look through boxes and boxes of little signed pieces of paper instead of stopping wrong way drunk drivers on the tollway.  "Dry" means we have fewer small neighborhood spots, it's unaffordable unless they have volume.  "Dry" means some of us have to travel miles to purchase our beer and wine - and give the sales tax revenue to other municipalities.  "Dry" means guests of restaurants licensed as clubs pay a surcharge for choosing to have a cocktail in their neighborhood.

And Unicard, Unicard is a good company and good people doing a good service.

Dear Representative Kent,

NOTE:   This is a duplicate of an actual email sent to my state representative, respectfully.  I can only imagine how difficult it must be to make everyone happy.

Reading today in the Dallas Morning News about the shortfall related to the switch over to the revised franchise tax was startling, especially since we've seen our restaurant's taxes go from $0 to over $X000 (about 7.5% of our net income) for the years it's been enacted and with no property tax reduction on the office building we reside in (our share of 2009 real estate taxes on the building and our property came to over $3X,000 last year). With 2009's tough economy, I'm expecting our state franchise tax to come in around 15% of our net income.

My name is Amy Severson, and with my husband Jim own a restaurant in Dallas called Sevy's Grill. Since our business has both high product and labor costs, the franchise tax has a real impact on our bottom line, even though we are taxed at half of the percentage many other industries are taxed at. I would hope our state legislators will examine who is paying more and who is paying less under this system before deciding that the rates need to be increased. We are getting through this like many other restaurants, but have made difficult sacrifices in order to not lay off one single employee so far.

I'd like to put in my two cents about other ways in which the State of Texas can make the deficit shrink, while also making taxes more fair and equitable for small businesses in the restaurant industry. I could see where certain groups (law enforcement, MADD, local municipalities) might embrace it, and it would be difficult for the TRA to oppose.

Did you know that some restaurants can charge an 8.25% sales tax on top of the price of an alcoholic beverage sale while others have to remit a 14% tax on the total sales price? And this 14% is hidden from the consumer, so they have the impression that one place offers a "cheaper" drink than the other. Hardly equal and fair, and looking at many of the same products being sold raises the question, why? Of course the facile answer is because of the difference in licensing (Mixed Beverage vs. Beer/Wine permit), but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the philosophical reasons of why. Does beer and wine get a person less drunk? No. Does a person only drinking beer or wine incur less cost to law enforcement and municipalities to monitor? No. Do under-aged adults require less education about drinking beer and wine? No.

Now here's where the political part comes in, it might even sound good to a few other people. You get rid of the Mixed Beverage Gross Receipts tax, and instead have all retailers who sell poured alcohol charge 8.25% sales tax plus a 5.75% consumed alcohol tax.

Many in my industry who are already paying the 14% would love to be able to disclose on a guest's check how much of what they were charged goes to pay taxes, you'd hear a big sigh of relief from that area. This would be printed on the guest check, like an additional sales tax, and would be a net wash for the state of Texas and local governments when it comes to licensees with Mixed Beverage permits. It would bring in additional revenue from those who are consuming alcoholic beverages but not paying an equal share of the costs associated with the sale, which they are allowed to do only because hard liquor is not being sold on the premises.

I think voters would be largely ambivalent, because they realize that many times they are already paying the higher hidden taxes And when they read about things like the costs associated with stopping wrong-way drivers from driving up the Dallas Tollway and killing others, it makes perhaps more sense to raise more revenue to cover the true costs of drinking and driving.

The licensees with Beer/Wine permits would not be incurring any additional costs, it is a new charge being levied on the consumer, one being changed to become fair and equal to all sellers of consumed alcoholic beverages. Untouched too would be the packaged retailer's costs - I'll let some other Davina take on that Goliath. It might even save some costs for the Comptroller and the TABC, who knows? How could the Texas Restaurant Association oppose this move when many of it's members already incur such a "hidden" and unequally assessed tax to do business?

Not that this will plug up the entire deficit, but it is one alternative that could gain a wide range of support and very little opposition. Feel free to share it with others if you agree, I am only sending this to you, not other representatives, as I reside in your district.

Very truly yours,
Amy Severson

Do You Think It Is BYOB?

I'm chewing on how to write this, like an overly dry-aged steak from a 16 year old cow that's been cooked beyond well done.   I thought about writing an expletive laden missive, removing the "F" key, but been there, done that.  In my mind's eye I see Wick Allison shaking his head at me, saying what a disappointment my writing has become, relying on the most wretched of verbs and nouns.   So, chew, chew, chew, how do I respond to the sell out, chew, chew, chew, of the Texas Restaurant Association, chew, chew, chew, with their upcoming fundraising luncheon, ack, yuck, spit, for Lieutenant Governer "Dewie" Dewhurst?  Does anyone have a glass of wine to help wash this down?

Look, it's not because of any political stance, I'm purple and I'm proud.  But this is the  guy who last year tried to damage the smallest of those in our industry with that stupid Wine Bill.   At a time of declining sales and declining tax revenue, the brilliant thought was to remove even more sales from an industry - resulting in even lower tax revenues to the state as well.   And while the general economy has boosted the number of guests who would prefer to dine with home-brought wines, the business model of most neighborhood restaurants (in Dallas mostly licensed as private clubs) relies on the markup of the sales.  A corkage fee will never be able to replace the lost margins, one set too high is perceived very poorly by guests.

And I'm left to wonder, once again, who is leading this industry group that claims to represent me as a member?  Well in examining the memo that accompanied this invitation it includes some restaurateurs prominent: Chris Pappas (yeah, that Pappas), Jimmy Hasslocher of San Antonio (Jim's Restaurants and Magic Time Machines), Tilman Fertitta of Galveston (Landry's Restaurants and the Golden Nugget Casino, LV) and some not so prominent:  Bobby Cox of Odessa (Rosa's Cafe, Taco Villa and Texas Burger restaurants), Larry Durrett of Jacksonville (Southern Multi-food, i.e. Yum brand restaurant franchisee), Herb Graham of Wichita Falls (Graham Bros. Entertainment, i.e. Nighclub owner), Russell Ybarra (Gringo's Mexican Kitchen, Gringo's Tex-Mex).  Bob Westbrook, President of the TRA is also listed on the memo (he's battling a little TABC issue over in home town Tyler) and so is Bob Barnes of Granbury, a real estate developer and Perry appointee to the Board of Directors of the Texas Mutual Insurance Company. 

But most disturbing on the list is the inclusion of Jose Cuevas of Midland.  Mr. Cuevas happens to be the appointed Chairman of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, which oversees the licensing, auditing and compliance of restaurants like mine.  And he's encouraging us to make a political donation to his buddy - no pressure there I'm sure, hopefully sure, maybe sure, gulp. 

So having few options left with which to format my objections (unless willing to risk the mother of all TABC rectal audits), I'm left with only my creativity to respond in the manner appropriate to the stature of these big-wigs.   Play it.

PLAYIN' WIT D'BOYZ
Hey look, your committee, it's apparent to me
Is short a few members, is it not plain to see?
Where's the small business in all of this?
Our pockets too shallow to be of much use?
White tablecloth, full service, fine dining, some call it.
At dues time you certainly sound like you're on it.
But once again, SCREWED, for political gain,
Winning favor for some, but not all, it's plain.
Glaringly, perhaps, the reason might be
The lack of the feminine upon the committee.
So let me conclude with this message, "Yo honey,
You show me the beef, and I'll show you the money."

Too Much Cheer? Take A Cab Tonight

Seriously, nobody wants to hurt anyone else and it is such an easy option to either 1) limit consumption or 2) get a cab .  And I watch TXCN almost every morning between 3:30 and 5:00, it sounds like every single police force possible will be on patrol tonight looking for overimbibers.  Here's a site to help you plan ahead to stay below the drunk driving limit, it also has some handy FAQ's about getting sober "myths".

One of my girlfriends adds about 1/3 club soda to her wine, personally if it's not exquisite wine I've been known to add a couple ice cubes to the last half of a glass of chardonnay.  It's about enjoying consumption, but also being able to drive safely.

So do whatever it takes, maybe for some that means staying home and enjoying the holidays to their utmost.  Just don't take it on the road.

UPDATE:  Apparently there's "An APP for that", was catching up with today's Wall Street Journal about an application you can download to let you know if you're too drunk to drive.  Brilliant.   I don't have an I-Phone but I'm going to see if there's something like that for mine.

You Want How Much For That Bottle?

Louis Louis, oh no you gotta go.
Aye-yi-yi-yi, I said
Louis Louis, oh baby
You gotta go.

Thirteen years of great tasting brew
Has Sevy's not been good to you?
At nineteen hundred it's too much to spend
I guess our relationship now must end.

Chorus

Second bottle's gone, but now I see
A six-year return is too long for me.
There's many a cognac waiting to sip,
Satisfying guests in an economic dip.

Chorus

OK Let's give 'em something else!

Guitar solo

See Dallas is mostly dry to the bone
As restaurants go, Sevy's ain't alone.
Too bad on E-bay we cannot deal
At eight hundred thirty it's an absolute steal!

Chorus

Let's take it on out of here now
Let's go!

* UPDATE:  With 21 hours left in the Ebay auction the .75 liter bottle of Louis XIII is now at $1,025, still a significant discount (over 40%!) from retail for those looking to schmooze the boss at the holidays this year!
UPDATE UPDATE:  Auction closed at $1,125 (COUGH, COUGH) I would have paid more if allowed to sell it through my business.

The College Brew-HaHa

I can relate to the outrage of college-themed beer being sold in markets with a large population of underaged kids away from home for the first time. It was two weeks ago today that hubby drove our first-born up to move into his dorm for his freshman year. But tough times calls for a better marketing move than this desperate attempt to bond to the "college spirit" which fires up every autumn. It has created quite a backlash against the "fan can" concept Budweiser was trying to promote.

In the parent's meeting at the Boy's college orientation last summer, the administrator in charge of handling student's health asked an auditorium full of parents, "How many of you are concerned about your child and alcohol their freshman year?" 90% of the hands went up. Next she asked, "How many of you think your child has never had a drink?" 80% of the hands went up. She went on to explain that on average, 80% of freshman have a drink during their first year. Of that group, 80% of those kids had consumed alcohol before the school year even started. An indication that there is a large disconnect between what parents think their kids are doing and what is actually going on.

And honestly since the passage of the drinking age from 18 to 21 there has been a lack of any sort of education that parents can follow, instead it is a secret inauguration typically conducted with their peers. There are some handouts available through the TABC that details the laws of Texas as regards to parents responsibilities (sadly these are available in English only). But a misperception still remains about what role a parent can play in their child's education about a legal drug that can, in excess, kill them.

But here's what I liked about the college he was attending, because it made so much sense. They required all incoming Freshman to take an online Alcohol Awareness class before school started. It was approximately 6 hours long, and appeared to be modeled very similarly to the classes that servers take to be Certified by the TABC. And yes, this is teaching them about something that is supposed to be at their age, illegal, but an abstinance only policy has proven to be a failure in helping and protecting students.

Send In the Clowns

Perhaps you heard about The Filling Station's busy Saturday night, you can check out the WFAA news report on it here. Around midnight, state Comptroller's and TABC agents paid the establishment a visit to claim cash from the till for back taxes. Problem was, they didn't owe any. The $500-plus dollars seized is to be returned to the business, because they were current on their tax bill.

Going after a business that doesn't pay it's taxes is a necessary thing if we rely on government services that are paid by those taxes. I like having police, fire, clean water, public schools, but it's a struggle to fund these services when the burden becomes greater on those who pay taxes because of those who don't. And it's also a greater burden on those who pay their taxes when government resources are used in a manner that is wasteful and unnecessary, like in the case of this "raid".

I've heard of the Comptroller's office visiting businesses to claim cash, but never accompanied by the TABC before, because the TABC does not collect taxes. So I shot Janet Ivy of Ivy Law Firm and TABS on Texas liquor licensing blog an email asking why the doubling up on forces?

Yes, these raids are happening all over Texas. Usually it's just the Comptroller but if the place has written a 'hot check' then the TABC (instead of the police) get involved and it usually is a big commotion. It is another issue for the legislature to straighten out and put boundaries on them both.

OK, so maybe they made a mistake in a previous month, they file taxes electronically so all payments must be made on the computer - including penalties and interest (the state sends you a nasty letter if you mail a regular check). It would seem if there was a past due amount it would be reflected on their electronic account. Also, the state has every filer's email address, why not send a daily email notice, that would provide a paper trail that the snail mail system lacks. Regardless, it appears that the mistake made was corrected by the owner by paying the amount due.

So it sounds like the TABC has a new enforcement role assisting the Comptroller in seizures, since they are licensed with guns unlike Comptroller agents. Just what the state and our industry needs - a brute squad.

Deadly Sweet

OK admittedly I'm short on time today, payroll is waiting to be input and we're painting Sister's bedroom. So I'm sending along this link to a great piece of writing by Marion Nestle on her blog, Food Politics. About the too-much sugar in our diet and how this is further complicated when nutritionist groups endorse sell their endorsement of products that are questionably "healthy".

My goal of packing a healthy lunch for school is undergoing a huge transformation - the salad, carrot sticks and fresh fruit are OK, but gone is the small organic Australian-themed (via Napa) yogurt. I checked and it contains over 5 teaspoons (25 grams) of sugar in that one little cup!

Restaurant Rant - Is $9.99 All It Takes?

It's been hot here, I realize that. Sunday afternoon it was 103 degrees in Dallas, 107 if you believed my car thermometer as I left the Dallas Convention Center where I attended the SW Food Expo. And maybe losing our electricity at home for 7 hours that day didn't help my mood. By evening, when the subject of dinner came up (and the status of our electricity still undetermined), my choice was 1) cold, with frozen beverages and 2) TV, so I voted for a chain named after a day of the week, which The Boy seconded and carried the vote of 3.

What occurred was such a sorry story of a bad experience I find it hard to share - except the highlights. As in the specious sell of a $9.99 "crunchy pecan-crusted chicken breast comes warm and sliced atop crispy Romaine lettuce", which arrived protein frigid with a chilly pecan crust that made me wonder, do they really cook this on site then chill it down, or does it come off the truck this way and the kitchen just slice it?

And to further the transgressions, when a guest asks their server if the $4 frozen strawberry margarita comes in a large size, a true salesman says "Absolutely, I love you, let me get you 2 or 3 or those" , NOT "well it's a lot more expensive". Larger sales must not be a priority in a place that is marketing it's new low-priced menu, and I'm certain that the lower prices are not necessarily helping in retaining their best and brightest staff. Not to load on our obviously ill-equipped server, but when the chef comes out, does a 360 in your station, and then comes back with a rag and starts wiping your tables, maybe it's time to think about another paying job.

Hubby said, "It starts at the top," and I couldn't agree more. From having to ask for silverware and napkins (twice), to noticing every waiter that passed by our table went by with empty hands (passing by empty tables filled with dirty dishes). It starts above the management of this particular location, it falls upon the shoulders of those "selling" this chain to guests, employees, franchisers, investors. It falls on those who think the public can be fooled by a $4 weak-ass margarita and a dumbed down $9.99 chicken salad.

How To Cook A Great Casserole, And Then How To Burn It

One of the things I've loved about 13 years involvement in public school is the interesting mix of ingredients. Every year it varies ever so slightly, teachers retire, new students transfer in, but the basic mix of our neighborhood school is the comfort food we crave. It provides our annual parades, theater, Friday night football games, a cycle by which we measure our alliance to our community. Everything and everyone is mixed up into one container, baked, and the delicious dish that emerges is a cohesive mass of delicate and exotic flavors.

Our recipe is not for all, I've learned to accept that not everyone wants a taste of this dish. Hey, I'm someone who doesn't eat seafood or fish so I get it. But when we talk about the recipes that would make Dallas a better city, education always seems to be a core ingredient to success. And we must acknowledge to make education in our city great requires more than just a private option, we must bring up our public schools.

So the Hillcrest community was thrilled when the Academic Success Program was introduced at the school two years ago. We all signed contracts agreeing to abide by the requirements of the program, attend parents/student group meetings, help our kids fill out the required forms, and in general, do whatever the wonderful Ms. Smith asked of us. Yes, we all knew this was a program whose primary (but not only) goal was to get students who were economically disadvantaged and potential first-time collegians into very good universities. And yes, some of the students in the program did not fit one or both of those classification, but all of the kids who participated, well they have been friends, classmates, academic competitors with each other for years, and have thrived on the challenge.

And here's the really important part - no student who wanted to work to participate in this program was left out. No one. Because it was at it's core a SELF-WORK program. The students had the expectation of achieving the goals set out on their timeline, from good grades, to letters of recommendation to transcripts, to applications to the FAFSA. For those kids without parental resources to navigate the complexities, ASP provided a more hands-on resource for them. And while located in one of Dallas' wealthiest neighborhoods, Hillcrest qualified for ASP through Title I funding because over 70% of the students come from families of low economic means, in fact the program was put into 12 DISD schools because of it's record of success.

Here is what ASP does: 1) Targets those kids who can meet academic requirements to entry into a four year university, 2) Exposes students to many more college opportunities through their extensive network and information, college open houses, and campus visits, 3) Provide a timeline and structure for students to complete all the necessary steps, 4) Source scholarship opportunities for students based on their academic achievements to apply for.

Here is what ASP does not do: 1) Try to convince kids into college - they must want it and be willing to do the work, 2) Provide funding or any financial support directly to any student, 3) Obtain scholarships for students - it is the scholar's academic and other achievements that earn them awards. ASP was not the only source of college entry for the seniors of Hillcrest, over 90 students listed 4 year universities on the graduation program, of which 33 were in the ASP program. But the rigorous requirements were more than some parents and students wanted to tackle.

So after two years of ASP, at the May Induction Ceremony it was gratifying to see the number of freshmen, sophomores and juniors who, driven by proven previous success, joined to make college entry their commitment over the coming years. Because the earlier ASP can begin to influence and help these targeted students, the greater their chance of success.

Then, in Saturday's DMN the bitter burning of our wonderful casserole, "Plan aids young Hinojosa", on the front page of the Metro section, right next to the article about teen offenders earning their GED while incarcerated. While I don't want to belittle their achievements, it was a strange juxtaposition in writing: glorifying the demons while demonizing the glory.

At issue seems to be that this young man came from a family of means, his father runs the school district, and he participated in this program. So I guess it raises two questions, if a school is receiving Title I funding for projects involving academics, does this require means testing of the students who participate? Because every day my children walk onto campus in some form or another, they are benefiting from Title I funding. So then do we "segregate" those students whose families have greater financial means on a campus from those who don't so resources cannot be shared? Of course not. I don't know of one middle class family that sends their child to Hillcrest to take advantage of the Title I "extra" funding. Their choices involve academics, community, allegiance (many parents are alumni) and friendships.

Second question relates to a student in our public schools obtaining entry into (one of) our nations premier universities. Is it somehow less of an achievement when a young man, who works his butt off to not only get the grades but do all the extracurricular activities (Student Council 4 years, Varsity Baseball 4 years, top 1% score on the SAT's) and who also happens to have a parent who runs the school district? Does it denigrate the achievement of any student that their father or mother may have money, degrees or accomplishments? I say not when they are working to achieve it themselves, which this young man did.

I closed my eyes the other day at graduation, taking a big bite and enjoying the flavor of the celebration. Amy T. who I still remember as a 1st grader in computer lab ("right click, left click, double click") is off to college, she had over $1.2 million in scholarship offers from various universities. "Mijo", my eagle who I've written about twice is also college bound to a private school in Ohio, fully paid due to his academic success and lacrosse skills. I know he worries about his grandmother, a maid in a Preston Hollow home who he will have to leave caring for his two siblings, but he knows she has help in our community. Then there's Jeremy, son of Heather, self employed, single-parent mom. Jeremy made it to the State Finals on the mock trial team, then helped his mother recover from a double mastectomy. This fall he heads to Oklahoma on a full scholarship.

I have expressed directly to the editors of our citys only daily newspaper my disappointment in the "rush to print" this sloppy piece of work. Because here is what they missed: 1) there was no investigation into whether the ASP program was handled differently at Hillcrest than at any of the other schools they served, 2) While the district could not verify the Hinojosa's participation in group meeting, you'd think someone could have called a certain sports writer in their organization, Hillcrest senior dad, and also ASP participant, Kevin Sherrington in the Sports Department. "Hey Kev, you have a senior over there, ever seen the Hinojosa's at these meetings?" his answer would have been "Yup, every single meeting", 3) No research was done on the requirements, goals and functioning of the ASP programs, including apparently checking out their website, 4) Nothing, nada, squat, zip was written about the kids who did obtain great opportunities through the program at Hillcrest. So not only did they tear the top down, they didn't bother to lift the bottom up either.
Has it come to where our city newspaper is denigrating district graduates for their achievements based on the income that their parents make or if they serve the public? Going after a kid who has been a role model to others certainly is scorching the food we all have to eat. Because that is what it smells like to this nose, and believe me I know what burning casserole smells like.

Dewhurst Wine Bill (SB 2523) Revisited

So I've spent over a week away from blogging after tackling such weighty issues as SB 2523, among other things. Work needed to be done, spring garden needed to be planted and after last Saturdays drenching rain, a french drain needed to be installed (what, pay a landscaper?). But last night after logging in and reading a comment on the previous post about the wine bill being discussed down in Austin, I've returned from my hiatus ready to address the issue further.

Calling my position a "red herring", and calling on us not to "throw the chains under the bus", he, or she decided to impart their knowledge as Anonymous. Which in my book, just makes them another opinion-sayer, with no actual industry knowledge of this bills effects on small businesses.

Whatever.

In fact I think I exactly bored into the heart of the issue - that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, a mish-mash of political wrangling over 80 years that contains more editing than my son's last English essay, no longer works. In fact it fails the ideals it was originally intended to protect. And this bill does not make any of that better, actually it goes so far as to further the decline in the code's effectiveness.

At what trade-off? To now be able to bring wine into an establishment, unfettered by law, but only by the owner's policies on the issue. Does the owner have the requirement to ensure that the wine consumed and served (but not sold) on premise is done responsibly? Of course they do - a minor in possession on premise would be a violation of any liquor license, no matter if it was provided by their older sibling. Somebody has a few cocktails before coming in for dinner, then cracks open a bottle or two - over intoxicated? Perhaps, and the business must still monitor the behavior and administer care in sending that person home in his or her car.

Most small businesses start out with a model of their expected income and expenses, this ties into the rent they pay, the labor and training of their staff, the insurance coverage they need. Take away those sales, without the accompanying lowering of expenses is a stifling weight for an owner/operator to bear. I posted about the problems in restaurant sales tax receipts last October and it hasn't improved since then. And for our employees whose income is directly tied to their sales, replacing a $60 bottle sale with a $25 corkage just twice a shift is a $3,600 cut in income per year - at a time when they've already seen 10 - 20% reductions due to declines in overall dining trends.

I've made the point previously that there are many ways that the cost to the restaurateur could be lowered, in our case as a club we are prohibited from purchasing our wines from a wholesaler, adding 20% or more to our cost of product. The lineage of distributorships in Texas is also one in which creates bottlenecks in the system of supply and demand, according to the Texas Sunset Advisory Committee Report of 2004 (Appendix A):

"While the system was certainly appropriate at one point in time, it now seems to be focused on protecting the interests of the various industry segments and not on public safety."

And taxes? From the 14% "hidden tax" we restaurateurs pay on sales to the $2.40 per gallon liquor excise tax (isn't this more than our gas taxes?) paid at wholesale, this all gets passed on to the consumer. Believe me, no one wants to offer the consumer a better deal than those of us serving the guests.

So I thought I would share with you some of the feedback I've received since this post, I've also received several phone calls from restaurant owners who are worried about the economic havoc this could cause for the small owner/operator.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Amy,
Did you see that Dewherst's bill went on the 'local and uncontested' calendar? Only way to stop it at this point is to call your State Rep and ask him to contest it in the House before it can be put on their local and uncontested calendar or raise a stink about it so Perry will veto it before it becomes law. Uncontested, sure. This not only a very, very poorly conceived bill but it is also a glaring example of how politicians are able to push their own agenda into law.

SB 2523Relating to the possession and consumption of wine on the premises of a mixed beverage or private club permittee; providing for separate statement of the mixed beverage tax.4/30/2009 S Placed on local & uncontested calendarAlcoholic beverage retailers really need to get organized to stop things like this - the Restaurant Association is only interested in helping the big chains."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"I am sure you all are aware of this wine bill dewhurst is going to get passed unless we all contact our state representatives easily by email with the link provided below asking them to be our voice and vote against thebill Texas HB 4813 which states that anyone can bring in a bottle of wine regardless of what type of liquor license you have. This not only will take money out of our pockets, it opens a whole new can of worms of liability and the ability to cut off an intoxicated guest because it is their wine... I do not know if it carries over to catered events, but, can imagine selling a wedding for 200 guests at your venue and they bring in their own wine? Not good. This is a special interest B.S. Back door deal that is exactly what iswrong with politics in the US. What is next? Beer? Alcohol under a certain proof? This is OUR BUSINESS. WE SELL FOOD, WINE AND ALCOHOL. Please readthe email from [deleted] below for further information.Please do not just discard this email. DO something. 10 minutes can save OUR industry in Texas for the duration of OUR CAREERS. Think about it; we bring them in with the great food, we impress them with the total package,but we make real MONEY with alcohol sales. This has already passed the senate because we did not respond fast enough.Please, help me save our wine programs!http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/welcome.php"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Chefs/Restaurant Owners/Friends,....Urgent!!!!.....Please contact your Texas State Senator to let them know to kill the below bill (senate bill 2523). It could be severely damaging to many white tablecloths restaurants!!!! Also contact Richie Jackson at the Texas Restaurant Association to ask him why the TRA sided with Dewhurst on this bill that could potentially damage our business' so badly. Please forward this to all of your restaurant associates to get this defeated."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"We will be rescinding out membership in TRA. The TRA represents chain restaurants and not white table cloth restaurants."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Pursuant to our discussion last week, here are my initial concerns, from a restaurant liability perspective, on SB 2523 - Dewhurst’s BYOB bill:

From a liability standpoint, restaurants that allow BYOB are still saddled with many alcohol-related laws, including the requirement to prevent minors from obtaining alcohol, etc.

Most importantly from the liability perspective, however, the Dewhurst bill would apply to establishments with a mixed beverage certificate or private club permit, which can serve liquor as well as wine. That means a diner could bring his own wine to the restaurant but still drink cocktails in the bar. If the restaurant’s TABC-certified employees prevent the diner from being over-served before dinner, but the diner then overindulges in his own wine, there is the very real possibility of “dram shop” liability if that diner drives out and injures someone. To prevent such an event, the restaurant would have to initiate one of the following policies: (a) prohibit those bringing their own wine from obtaining on-premise alcohol, or (b) prohibit those bringing their own wine from actually consuming it if they appear over-served (that’s a nice scene playing out in the middle of a dining room). Neither of these choices are feasible from either an economic or public relations standpoint. The idea of limiting the number of bottles a customer may bring with them or charging prohibitively high corkage fees also fail to address the issue, because scrupulous operators will be at the mercy of their neighbors who charge low corkage and/or allow a patron to show up with a picnic basket full of wine.

And just because the restaurant doesn’t “sell” the alcohol when it’s BYOB doesn’t mean it won’t be named as a defendant when the patron who over-serves himself crashes into a family while driving home. The restaurant would – at the very least – find itself listed as a defendant and be faced with paying an attorney to prove it didn’t sell the diner any alcohol.

Another facet of the bill is that the BYOB patron will be allowed to leave with her partially-drunk, re-corked bottle. BYOB establishments might need to impose rules requiring the bottle be placed in the trunk of the patron’s car, away from the driver and occupants, but even with a valet stand enforcement of such a measure would be virtually impossible.

And from a semantic perspective, for those who pay all that money for a private club permit, the language of the bill as drafted does not provide that “a member” of the club can bring in his own wine, just “a person.” "

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hi Amy my name is [deleted] from Austin, Texas. I was sommelier at Steel and Nana restaurants and a judge many times in the Dallas morning news Wine competition. I'm writing to tell you that I agree with your outrage at the current proposed legislation to change the wine laws. I was speaking with my Operating Partner of Flemings Steakhouse here in Austin, Darryl Wittle(whos x wife owns Aquarelle here in Austin as well) who is a long time restaurant personality here in the Capitol city. He was asking me if I knew any people in the Dallas market who would stand up to help him and other restauranteurs from Austin and Houston to stand up and try to derail this legislation! I'd love to speak with you further and put you in touch with him. I have emails out to many colleages in Dallas to see if we can jointly unite to put an end to this scary proposition! I look forward to hearing from you!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Two Words: Road Trip!

SB 2523 - "F" Me?

I remember distinctly the moment yesterday when I read the article in TDMN about a new wine bill in Austin that had passed the Senate committee and was on it's way to the legislature for debate. I remember it distinctly because the Diet Dr. Pepper shot right out of my nose and onto my laptop - for a moment I was worried I had shorted out the letter "F". Because really, how was I going to respond without an "F"?!? All was fine, but I decided I could probably do a better job of responding by leaving the "F" on the sideline and really examining the issues that scream for a debate about this bill.

It's impossible to even attempt to summarize the Texas Alcoholic Beverage code, originally written in the 1930's and amended enough times to no longer represent the cohesive intents of it's original writing. But here, and here, are a few previous posts I've written about the subject on this blog and SideDish that might help provide some background. Yesterday I shot Nancy Nichols at DMagazine a (semi) tongue-in-cheek email about the issue which she posted, and there is more information in the comments section over there.

But I don't want this to be a rant on the TABC code, because it's the law and like it or not those are the rules we agreed to open our business under. Dry vs. wet? Well that 's a local argument, the state plays no role in that a limited role in that. And this isn't a rant about "yes or no" on BYOB policies, though as a business owner I feel I should have the right to decide what is served (or isn't) in my establishment.

No "F" needed or used here.

Our profession revolves around always trying to make the guest happy, and we've all faced the person who has a very special occasion and wants to bring their (husband's, wife's, boss's) favorite wine to make it even better. And fine wine drinkers - well hey, they're like our best friends, which is why at our restaurant we stock many, many delicious varieties of upscale wines (with a wide range of prices) to serve our guests.

The bill, appearing very quickly and passing through less than normal channels in the Senate, and the "pet" name given to tie it to our Lieutenant Governor has added a comical twist to the issue. For all I know, Mr. Dewhurst believed that this would be good for business, and it was a way for him to enjoy his favorite wine while dining at an establishment. And the Fiscal Report of the impact of the bill indicated that the state could potentially reap even more tax revenue from this change, it certainly didn't appear to be a money loser for them.

But excuse me for feeling a little like having been kicked in the groin for the opening wording of the Author/Sponsor's Statement of Intent:

"A person may wish to eat at a restaurant or a private club and may not care for the wine selection, but desire to have wine with his or her dinner."

WT, um, H? I'd like to give Mr. Dewhurst the benefit of the doubt, after all these were not his words, but maybe I should suggest to him that his favorite restaurant probably wouldn't keep showing him the love if this had passed. If one is consuming a very nice vintage, one is (hopefully) consuming the appropriate cuisine to compliment such and I have to wonder if his "favorite" restaurant doesn't offer many excellent choices that are for sale on-premise. So to say "I don't care for your wine selection", is rather akin to shoving a wine opener up the rump of the owner.

See, another paragraph with no "F".

The really bad thing for the business owner is no matter what stance they take they are ultimately going to make a guest unhappy. Do you selectively allow? People don't like a "no". Do you have a standard corkage? People think $75 might be harsh, but you have to make up for the cost of labor, glassware and the cost of the liability of the service. Ironically, the higher you set your corkage, the higher the price of the "walk in" replacement might be, after all retail price + $75 might be a real discount for a $300 bottle the restaurant sells.

I'm still trying to work my mind around the mathlete wonks who said this would be a potential revenue increase for the state's coffers. My public school math tells me that when one multiplier is reduced - in this case the sales revenue (retail vs. restaurant prices) would be lower, as would the sales tax rate (8.25% vs. 14%) - then the total will be lower. Unless you increase the other multiplier, which would be the volume of sales. Of course there's the corkage fee which would be subject to a 14% tax, but it would probably still be lower than the gross margin a restaurant would make selling an on-premise bottle.

I sent an email out to restaurant owners here in Dallas, one who is involved with the TRA said he'd seen a previous copy of the bill, but "the great news is we now get to add on the 14% Gross Receipts Tax". I hated to burst his bubble, but the wording of the bill did not state this. The bill allows restaurants to now print out on a separate line how much of the alcohol sales would be going to the state of Texas. So if you offer a wine for sale for $50, you may now print on the check something like "includes $7 in Texas Gross Receipts tax", or "Wine $43, Texas tax $7, total $50", but you absolutely would not be allowed to add the tax to the published price of a drink. Which is a financial wash, because we pay the tax regardless if it is printed on a statement or not. And as I pointed out to my brother in food, our guests right now are looking for a better deal on nice wines, not getting stiffed with a new tax. Bad PR move from my view.

Another restaurateur, gobsmacked by this apparent "sell out" by the TRA notes the high number of chain restaurants that occupy board seats in the organization. He theorizes that for them it's a back door to "fooling" the public into believing that they've lowered their prices, i.e. the $6.50 margarita becomes now becomes $5.59 for the drink and .91 in Texas taxes on a guest's check. Given the wording of the bill, the Comptroller would probably accept this as long as the business doesn't advertise $5.59 Margaritas. I know, it's complicated. And it may result in a backlash, one restaurateur is considering openly calling for small restaurant owners to drop their membership in the TRA, after all is this what we get for our annual fees?

Close, very close to an "F" on that one.

So I have a different recommendation for our politicians in Austin, because I would love to be able to offer our guests a lower priced alternative to enjoy while they dine on hubby's delicious food. Help us in the industry find ways to lower the cost of what we offer, by changing other "protective" legislation that controls the complicated maze of producer to table. Let us be the ones to find ways to make people come through our doors, sans paper bag to enjoy the entire dining experience we are offering.

And to Mr. Dewhurst (or "Dewie" as I now think of him), honey, if you're going to a joint that doesn't serve a decent wine, for god's sake, have a beer.

UPDATE: Apparently we accountants "stick together", read the former Comptroller's letter to LGov.