,
17 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
1. So can I take a land use planning slant on the @OntarioPCParty ‘quest for beer’ social media campaign? #OnPoli
2. Many of these tweets are being framed around ‘convenience’ – selling the termination of the Beer Store contract as though it will provide people with walkable amenity. Step out the door to grab a beer! 
3. Before proceeding further, allow me to note that it’s beyond ironic that a party headed by a politician so steeped in the ‘war against the car’ culture wars is now, essentially, selling the idea of walkable local retail…
4. Anyhow, let’s look at one example: Here is @celliottability, respresenting the riding of Newmarket-Aurora.
“We are giving the people Newmarket-Aurora choice and convenience.”
Really?
“We are giving the people Newmarket-Aurora choice and convenience.”
Really?
5. Here are the approximate locations in Newmarket-Aurora where one can currently purchase beer:
Green = grocery store
Blue = LCBO
Red = Beer Store
(note: this excludes wine-only retailers)
Green = grocery store
Blue = LCBO
Red = Beer Store
(note: this excludes wine-only retailers)
6. Put a buffer around those (and adjacent) points and you find that almost all of Newmarket-Aurora is within 2,500 m of an LCBO, a Beer Store, or a grocery store that sells beer. Hardly a #BoozeDesert.
7. Now here’s the land use map from Newmarket’s Official Plan. The places that currently sell beer are located in the red/purple areas. Those same red/purple areas are also where any new vendors would presumably be located.
8. This is the reality of land use in most suburban contexts: the relatively limited land area that permits retail - where you find minimarts and grocers - is the same area where beer is already sold.
9. So in many cases expanding ‘choice’ will not expand access or convenience, it will just allow additional stores to sell beer in close proximity to those that were already doing so.
10. A secondary reality: most of the ‘marts that the @OntarioPCParty trained seals are touting in their tweets are places that people drive to, and once in their cars, there are already options a minute or two further away. Again, no real added convenience.
11. ...and that’s not some broad, baseless stereotype – the evidence bears it out. Looking at TTS data for households in Newmarket and Aurora (our previous example), 95% of trips to market/shop destinations were made by car, only 1.5% on foot.
12. ...and if you assume that almost all shopping trips are being made by car, then this is a map where almost everybody is within just a few minutes of a retailer that sells beer.
13. So unless you want to re-introduce convenience retail in residential areas, and allow the densities that would support local shops, this alone won’t move the needle on most people’s choice or convenience of access.
14. (but then we’d be having a substantive policy discussion, rather than responding to populist pandering….)
15. In sum, if cancelling the Beer Store contract incurs any costs, they will have largely been incurred to signal change, rather than to achieve any.
16. and that, of course, is without even touching upon social/public health coats of consumption; controlling sale to minors; recycling/deposit return program; union jobs...
-END-
-END-
P.S. I meant to quote this tweet at the start of the thread, as it, in part, got me thinking along these lines:
