Comments on: On Stone in SC

By: Doug Fisher

Doug Fisher — Sat, 03 May 2014 23:18:10 +0000

XOXO

By: On Stone in SC | Beer Infinity

On Stone in SC | Beer Infinity — Thu, 01 May 2014 17:10:19 +0000

[…] Read the full article here. […]

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:27:03 +0000

That’s exactly why it’s being framed the way it is. If it was simply cast as a bill to support local brewpubs, it wouldn’t garner as much support and would face the same critics the Pint Bill did when it was discussed (those who think all alcohol is the devil and fight any legislation to allow for more alcohol). But framing it as a bill that would create hundreds of new jobs and bring in tens of millions of dollars in investments is a surefire way to get people on board.

By: duane

duane — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:45:32 +0000

to be honest, it takes some effort to get legislation passed. it’s not just about the money, but about the number of people that would throw support behind something. Amazon bringing jobs was widely supported by the public and I have a feeling that having a large brewery like stone in the area, bringing jobs and people, would be widely supported.

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 06:54:26 +0000

I don’t think Stone being a presence in SC would diminish or dampen anything about the breweries that are already here. Their great quality will certainly shine one way or another, and having a brewery such as Stone here would certainly be a push them to be on that kind of level. But my stance is, at this point in time in the growth of the state’s beer scene, I’d rather not have the presence of something such as Stone simply because I want SC breweries to reach that level of competition or creativity on their own, and not because of what I feel may be an artificial push because of an outside brewery. That’s not to say I wouldn’t want another big-scale brewery to consider SC in the future. I just think at this point, I’d rather not have it be a major factor.

On your other point – and this isn’t to pick on you at all, because I’ve heard the same argument from numerous people – I’m not completely on board with the whole “a win is a win” mentality. Yes, having a brewery such as Stone in SC would be a boon. But I fear, as I said, too many people are looking at this situation through rose-colored glasses. A lot of people I’ve talked with agree with me in the sense they wish it was a more organic, locally driven bill, but most people side with the opinion that they’d rather swallow their pride, so to speak, and have it be a backdoor for bigger breweries if it means working in the interest of local business. I don’t fault or blame anyone for thinking that way; it’s completely understandable and justifiable. But that doesn’t mean I agree with it or like that that’s the case. Again, I wish this was something that came about solely because of an interest in bettering local business, and *then* maybe lead to bigger things instead of having the prospect of landing a big business looming over everything. Do I realize that’s not always the case? Absolutely. But does that mean I agree with it. Not really.

By: Austin

Austin — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 03:59:41 +0000

I can understand your opinion and I definitely see where you’re coming from with your points. However, where you think that the slight possibility of Stone entering into the SC scene may dampen the ingenuity and creativity of the existing “little guys” like Brewery 85, Quest or even what I consider to be the SC juggernaut of great craft beer, Westbrook, I think that it would give them a good kick in the ass to up their game. Not that all the local microbreweries I’ve tried in SC aren’t putting out damn good beer, just that competition in the craft beer market is never ever a bad thing and will often push brewers out of their comfort zones and cause them to really push the envelope in their pursuit of great beer.

As for the passing of the law…. well, i definitely agree that having any laws concerning beer passed simply because some major brewery is simply contemplating the possibility of maybe putting it’s next brewery here is a little off-putting, I can only think about it in sports terms… a W is a W. When it all boils down to it’s essentials, a win is a win regardless of how you get it.

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:24:56 +0000

I’m admittedly long-winded, but my opinion really boils down to two main points: 1) I understand the benefits a brewery such as Stone could bring to the state, but at this point in the beer scene’s evolution, I’d rather have a big-name player not in the immediate picture. 2) I don’t oppose the legislation because it will benefit local businesses, but I wish it had come about because of them and not because the possibility of landing a big brewery such as Stone. I’m not trying to argue against them coming here or looking to convince anyone they’re wrong for wanting them here. I’m just saying in my own personal opinion, I don’t think it’s the right time or the right way to bring in a big brewery like them.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:18:00 +0000

Money talks, eh? Not so different from the way money talks when breweries or retailers want to do something that the wholesalers don’t like, and so they’re able to impress upon the legislature to water down the initiatives until they appear to pose a minimal threat to the wholesalers’ enshrined-in-law, no-way-around-it fact of existence.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:13:44 +0000

So if I have more or less understood all this correctly, you a) are in support of the legislation being proposed and what it will do to help local breweries, b) understand the benefit such a large brewery will have to the state, c) won’t try to keep Stone out of the state and d) wish that all of this had come about on behalf of the many very small breweries in our state. I haven’t seen one real tangible drawback presented here (but it’s not local, there’s too many road bumps, etc.), and you seem to love everything about it, but you just don’t want Stone here? Sometimes you need the big guys to come along and help you get things done, and that’s what appears to be happening.

By: drinkblogrepeat

drinkblogrepeat — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:01:45 +0000

It’s an unfortunate reality these days. I support the bill because it will help local businesses, but there’s no secret about how it’s other goal is to lay the groundwork for Stone and other big breweries to enter the state. And while it is designed to benefit local biz, the way it’s being framed – “The Stone Bill” – is to appeal to lawmakers and a larger audience. I understand why it has to be that way, but that doesn’t mean I like it.

On a similar note, I’d put money down on the Legislature completely throwing out the Pint Law and going to unlimited pints at breweries the minute a big-name beer maker seriously considers opening in SC and wants to serve as much as they like. Local breweries don’t have that kind of pull, but the big bucks of a national brewer do. (And, if SC does get Stone, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a change to the Pint Law.)