Little help with stupid Mass politicians???

[Cape Brewing]

What do you think a farmer's license was for?

It was to encourage farming.

And? What is your point??

 

[iaefebs]

small business? Why do you think they called it a farmer's license?

Waiting for the answer... Why is this an issue now?

 

[passedpawn]

Waiting for the answer... Why is this an issue now?

How the heck would I know? Clearly the gov'ts, from state to fed, need to increase revenue. They're all broke. Alcohol is an easy target.

I'm sorry that you're surprise that a Farmer's license is meant for farmers.

 

[iaefebs]

How the heck would I know? Clearly the gov'ts, from state to fed, need to increase revenue. They're all broke. Alcohol is an easy target.

I'm sorry that you're surprise that a Farmer's license is meant for farmers.

I never said I was surprised that a farmers license was meant for farmers. I am of the opinion that politicians will be raising any fee they can to offset loss in tax revenue. Income tax is only a portion of all the taxes we pay.

 

[the_bird]

Forget the "farmer" part of the name in the license; for all practical purposes, the license has had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with farming for decades. It's antiquated semantics.

Massachusetts has basically had two licenses for the production of beer, one for craft brewers and one for macro (although I have no idea who in the state operates under the "manufacturing" license). In real world terms, the "farmer" license has been cheap, at least relative to my understanding of what other states would charge. Rather that do what a reasonable state might do (think about raising the fee a little), they've completely changed the real-world definitions of these two licenses. Which has the effect of killing a huge number of small, growing businesses.

The very concept of a "farmer/brewery" is illogical in this state given the impossibility of large-scale commercial grain farming. We ain't the Midwest. There is actually a tiny local maltster (in South Hadley; wonder if THEY had something to do with this... ), but there's hardly any barley grown in the state, and no commercial hops. It's not like Valley Maltsters is in a position to supply Sam Adams.

I have no reason to believe this change was impacted with any nefarious intentions, some group supporting farmers in the state found an old law, but nobody considered the consequences. I'd hope, in the end, they create a "micro/nanobrewery" license that would fit for all of the small breweries being impacted.

People want to be argumentative on this for some reason, but in practical terms the state of Massachusetts us is telling us that small breweries are going to be forced to pay $10k a year to exist. The new interpretation of this law is trying to force farming in the state that simply is not feasible or economic.

THAT doesn't piss y'all off? Lots and lots of good breweries in the state that are going to be hurting.

 

[the_bird]

Oh, and "Bog Iron Brewing"?

Nice, and probably better than "Pig Iron." From the sounds of things, maybe you better leave that one for Paulie.

 

[Cape Brewing]

I'm not a big fan of the name. Like the website says, I was talked into it.

 

[the_bird]

I'm mixed on it. I tend to think if you have to explain it, it's probably not right. But, if you end up moving to 'Lil Rhody, you may want something different anyway.

OchoDrinko, baby!

Has Sam Adams spoken on this issue at all? I'd probably approach them and see if you can get them to take a stand on the issue. It's a pretty minor issue for them in terms of the $$, but they've generally been very supportive of other craft brewers, and they've got a lot more weight than a handful of homebrewers.

 

[Cape Brewing]

The Mass Brewers Guild is meeting with the State Treasurer (ABCC is under the Treasury) to talk about this. Boston Beer Co, from the best I can gather, has been pretty vocal. It's not just $ for them, they will lose the tasting rooms at the brewery. No more tastings with tours.

 

[Homercidal]

I can't speak for Mass. since I've never been there. We got fields all over the place where I live. So my assuming that tying a farm to a brewery is no stretch of the imagination here.

And you didn't mention that there was no verbage on how much you could grow in the original statute. It sounded like you didn't know and were pissed to find it was 50% (the number quoted in the article you posted)

I agree that there should be an alternate license for very small brewers. I'm all for it.

But did you honestly think that sticking a hop plant or two in the backyard of the brewery somehow makes this license valid? That would obviously be a token gesture.

There must be a copy of the original statute available for review. It's very hard to believe that anyone would write up something like that and it so ambiguous as to not determine some kind of amount.

But bottom line, they are not only screwing the small brewers, but basically shutting down all of them. They must realize that. I'm kind of shocked that they don't see the loss in revenue from shutting these places down. It's clear that none of them will be moving to manufacturers licenses based on the requirements.

They should set up a nano brewery license, brewpub license, craft brewery license, etc. A graduated license system to help a business grow. Michigan now has a micro-distillery that can be applied to a microbrewery license for allowing places to start a small distillery if they choose. New Holland has one. I see it as encouraging business. People are going to drink beer or not, as they choose. Having this kind of licensing helps breweries to start up in the state and help the local and state economies.

You should move out here and start up. We could use a brewery in Cadillac. (already one going into Big Rapids, in addition to the one already here, whose beer is not that good...)

 

[Cape Brewing]

But did you honestly think that sticking a hop plant or two in the backyard of the brewery somehow makes this license valid? That would obviously be a token gesture.

There must be a copy of the original statute available for review. It's very hard to believe that anyone would write up something like that and it so ambiguous as to not determine some kind of amount.

I'm really not sure how people aren't getting this.

For about the 12th time... we REVIEWED the original statute. We had our ATTORNEY review the original statute. We contacted the ABCC directly on this topic. Our attorney contacted the ABCC directly. TWENTY-FIVE other effin breweries are already licensed and do the EXACT same thing... simply toss a hop vine up near the brewery.... and it has all been fine for years becuase there.... IS... NO... PERCENTAGE... IN... THE... LAW.

I appreciate that is hard for you to believe so look it up. Google Chapter 138 Section 19C of the Mass General laws.

And also for the 12th time... Boston Beer Co (Sam Adams) has this effin license. Do you HONESTLY think the ABCC was under the impression that Sam Adams grew (AND effin malted) some material percentage of their total ingredients?

It was an incredibly vague law/license that every one used. The ABCC decided enough was enough and tossed out a completely arbitrary number of 50% that has zero basis in any existing law. That number, if it sticks, makes the license unobtainable for EVERY SINGLE of the 25 existing breweries that have it. And also for the 12th time... the ONLY other alternate license is impossible for a start-up to work under.

So by making this change, the ABCC is basically making start-up breweries in Massachusetts impossible.

 

[Homercidal]

Look on the bright side. At least you didn't sink hundreds of thousands of dollars into your brewery before the law got clarified.

 

[Cape Brewing]

My strong suspicion is that the whole process is going to get changed.

The Manufacturer's license will probably be loosened up a hair, the Farmer Brewer's license will stil require farming but not at the 50% threshold and then I am willing to bet that a third "small brewery license" is created that grants the benefits of the FB license but is a bit more expensive or something.

 

[Homercidal]

With the people who are contacting the officials over this, I suspect there will be some change. I can't believe the people in charge will allow all of those places to close or lose 1/3 or more of their revenue. It's a lose-lose for everyone. Nobody wants that.

 

[the_bird]

My strong suspicion is that the whole process is going to get changed.

The Manufacturer's license will probably be loosened up a hair, the Farmer Brewer's license will stil require farming but not at the 50% threshold and then I am willing to bet that a third "small brewery license" is created that grants the benefits of the FB license but is a bit more expensive or something.

I agree.

I'd love to see more locally-grown beer ingredients, but not at the expense of the excellent MA-based craft brewers. If a brewery can farm (or purchase from local farmers) a third of their raw ingredients, charge them nothing more than a nominal fee.

For craft brewers, a reasonable fee (something more than $22, something far less than $10k!), allow self-distribution, allow tasting rooms. Sliding scale-fee based on production. Look at the growth of wineries in the Finger Lakes region - none of that is happening without tasting rooms! And, disallowing self-distribution does absolutely nothing except benefit the third-party distributors. It's a business decision that I've heard Jim Koch talk about, it's a lot of work to self-distribute but it's a helluva lot more profitable if you're successful.

Who in the state operates under the "Manufacturer" license?

There's no reason for brewing to not be a growth industry for the state. There's certainly demand for good beer (I'm always blown away by how much better the selection here is, even in ****ty little packies, than almost anywhere else). It's a big, positive part of the Pacific Northwest culture, it should be the same for New England.

 

[Cape Brewing]

The Bird is a wise... wise man.

 

[Homercidal]

Generally brewing licenses are stupidly operated.

It only makes sense that they would want to encourage people to build brewpubs and make it as easy for them to start up as an bar or liquor store. The output is the same: People drinking.

A brewpub would bring even more job growth and likely higher tax income. And a tasting room is an obvious plus for anybody. I can't understand how they aren't allowed for ANY small brewery.

It just seems like such an obvious boon to any community to have a small brewpub if the owner decides it's a worthwhile business to get started. I think people will come to see this again like it was long ago before big beer killed them all off. It's something the community can be proud of.

 

[the_bird]

Just sent this email to our state senator (Ben Downing) and representative (Gailanne Cariddi). This is a small town, there's a 10% chance these people may actually recognize my name!

Real concern with proposed changes to “Farmer-Brewer” licenses.

Greetings,

I have some real concerns with the advisory the MA Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission yesterday issued this week, regarding changes to the “farmer-brewery” licenses that so many Massachusetts craft brewers operate under. My understanding is that any brewery operating under this license would now be required to source at least half of their raw ingredients from Massachusetts farms.

While I certainly support farming in Massachusetts, this strikes me as being unduly stringent. There simply is not enough barley grown in the state (and no commercial hop farming that I am aware of) that would allow existing breweries to meet this requirement. Forcing craft brewers to apply for a “Manufacturers” license would significantly increase their costs, and just as importantly not allow them to either self-distribute or to offer a tasting room (both very important to small, startup operations).

I do not doubt that the changes were proposes with good intentions, but the potential consequences are that many smaller breweries may be forced to shut down, and this certainly will discourage new breweries from being formed. I’ve learned about this issue specifically because I have a very good friend who is in the process of forming a craft brewery, and who is now almost certain to locate in Rhode Island instead of MA. I’d like to think that having a vibrant craft brewing industry can be an important part of this state’s culture, just as the winemaking industry is so important to places like Napa Valley and the Finger Lakes.

I’d be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this issue. Thank you!

***
Adams, MA

 

[the_bird]

Ugh, please don't tell me I have to support Scott Brown on an issue... Does seem like this should be an issue for the state legislators, not guys like Brown, though.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/08/05/sen_brown_new_beer_rule_is_a_job_killer/

Senator Scott Brown yesterday condemned a rule change at the state’s Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission that beer makers say could harm 25 craft brewers in Massachusetts, and even put some smaller companies out of business.

The ABCC issued the revised rule, which has yet to be finalized, earlier this week. It would require the roughly two dozen local brewers operating under a so-called farmer-brewery license to grow at least half of the hops or grains they use to make beer, or get them from a domestic source.

“The commission’s insistence that a brewery grow at least 50 percent of the cereal grains and hops used in production is impractical in Massachusetts and a job-killer,’’ Brown wrote yesterday in a letter to state Treasurer and Receiver General Steven Grossman, who oversees the commission. “The costs of compliance would be burdensome, and in some cases, crushing . . . I urgently request that the ABCC reconsider this proposed change.’’

Grossman said that after seeing Brown’s letter, he immediately called the senator to reassure him that the rule change is a “work in progress.’’

The treasurer is scheduled to meet with brewers on Monday. “It’s meant to be an opportunity to listen to the industry and hear their concerns,’’ Grossman said. “I consider this advisory to be a work in progress. I consider it to be something that is out there for comment, and we will take into account any and all comments from the public or the industry.’’

The commission has said its advisory is an attempt to clarify just who qualifies as a farmer-brewer - someone who grows hops or grain to produce a malt beverage.

But brewers have said it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a farmer-brewery license under the new requirements laid out by the commission. Without that license, they could not operate on-site tastings at breweries, and many fear they would have to pay a distributor to get their products into retail outlets, rather than saving money by doing it themselves.

Grossman said his office will use input from Monday’s meeting to help the ABCC craft a “thoughtful, common-sense’’ rule.

“We need to do everything we can to create jobs and to celebrate and nurture entrepreneurship,’’ he said.

At the same time, Grossman added, the commission shouldn’t shy away from asking “the industry to bend over backwards to help and to nurture the agricultural sector of the industry - but without making the bar so high that it is excessively onerous or burdensome.’’

 

[Homercidal]

OH, now it's a work in progress. They're taking comments on it. And apparently the license is not at all about the brewery, but about propping up the states agriculture.

 

[luke2080]

1. I agree that them suddently creating a % that you are supposed to farm is a farce. I've known people that talked to ABC as well about this, and they said you were good to go with a farmers license.

2. How was Sam Adams listed under this license. That is a joke.

3. Where are you pulling the $10k manufacturer license cost? License to be a manufacturer of Wine and Malt beverages is $4,500. All booze (distilled spirits) is $10k.
http://www.mass.gov/abcc/pdf/StateLicenseFeeSchedule.pdf

4. I am still 90% sure you can self distribute in MA, regardless of your license. You just need a license to Sell and Transport (another $500 to $1k). I would hope the cost for the storage license is included with the Manufacturer's license. (Cape - if you have the details showing you can't self distribute under the MALT beverage manufacturing license, please share it so I am informed. I'll do some more research later tonight, I need to bookmark things like this more often)

And just a question on the self distribution - If you manufacture in RI - I would assume you HAVE to have a distributor for MA. Need to look that up too. And if you need to get in touch with a distributor, I have a guy.


But yeah this is B.S. They do need some tiers for these licenses. No way a nano should be paying what Boston Beer Co is for their license. And I'm shocked they were granted the Farmer Brewery license.

This is why I try to ignore politics (and maybe a good example of why I shouldn't....)

 

[the_bird]

Well, as to why Sam Adams operates under this license... the manufacturing license would prevent them from having their tasting rooms (which they clearly view as being very important). There's no reason I can think of why breweries operating under a "Manufacturer's" license shouldn't also be allowed to having tasting rooms.

 

[Homercidal]

I got a Sam Adams tasting room in just about every party store in my town...

 

[Cape Brewing]

Luke...

Couple things there and excuse me, I'm on my phone so linking ain't exactly the easiest thing to do right now.

On the Manufacturer's license fees... Thats odd and I've never seen that fee schedule. If you read the actual statutes under chapter 138, it says "no less than $6k and no more than $10k".

If we brew in RI we can self distribute ONLY in RI. That is right. We would need to go through a distributor for Mass. But at least we could start out very small and distribute locally on our own.

The self distribution under the Manufacturer's license is a hot topic of debate. If you read any of the press, that is a main concern of bigger breweries in the state... They want to self distribute. The law isn't clear and I goota think Boston Beer Co has a few lawyers on hand. If this wasn't an issue, I don't think they would be showing as much concern as they are.

 

[luke2080]

Luke...
The self distribution under the Manufacturer's license is a hot topic of debate. If you read any of the press, that is a main concern of bigger breweries in the state... They want to self distribute. The law isn't clear and I goota think Boston Beer Co has a few lawyers on hand. If this wasn't an issue, I don't think they would be showing as much concern as they are.

Ahh - that makes sense. Sucks for small guys but that makes sense. Hopefully they get their act together and make better tiers for these licenses.

And when you can check the link, check what I sent previously. It is the ABCC's schedule for licenses and fees.

This has caused a pretty good uproar, hopefully that continues.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Check out this link (i was just reading it)

It mentions the $6-$10k

http://beeradvocate.com/forum/read/3977711

 

[the_bird]

Wow, that proposed legislation sounds exactly perfect. Is there an outside chance they might get something RIGHT for a change?

 

[Cape Brewing]

Scott Brown could rape baby bunny rabbits and still be my hero

 

[the_bird]

I still ain't voting for that ****. To be fair, I wouldn't have voted for Jimmy "Peanuts!" Carter, either.

 

[Cape Brewing]

It was bipartisan and very much a "this is nuts" move. I applaud both legislators for not being stubborn a-holes (see debt ceiling)