There were a lot of reasons to support Surly Brewing in their bid to build a new $20 million brewery and pub. Advocates emphasized the proposed complex’s ability to create jobs (in the form of construction jobs and permanent jobs once the complex is constructed) and its ability to draw in tourism. Some felt the increase in prominence would increase Surly’s brand recognition and serve as a model for other companies. All valid and excellent reasons to get behind Surly in their legal fight, which ended April 7 when an amendment passed that will allow breweries to have a taproom on the premises (so long that those companies brew less than 250,000 barrels per year: a measure tacked on so the amendment will not be exploited by the Millers and the Budweisers of the world).

For those of you who are unaware of what has transpired, here’s a recap: small local brew favorite Surly wanted to grow up and build a Target Field of beer, so to speak. The new brewery/restaurant would do all sorts of wonderful things: draw tourists, create jobs, and keep our thirst adequately quenched. The one catch was that by selling their beer on the premises Surly would disrupt the three-tier system of beer distribution (comprised of producers like Surly, distributors, and retailers like bars and liquor stores) already in place, or so the MLBA (Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association) claimed. The MLBA claimed that the proposed complex would give Surly a competitive advantage. If major producers followed suit, then the system would really be on its way to hell in a handbasket. Although the MLBA still opposed the bill, an agreement was made that allowed for construction of the complex (which will lead to taphouses in breweries at more than just Surly) without damaging the three-tiered system.

Despite all this technical speak, there is only one real reason why so many people supported Surly: we love beer. This isn’t shocking news, but its curious that we use the supplemental justifications of job-creation and tourist-attraction, when all we are really saying is “This should be allowed because Surly is awesome and getting a pint at the brewery would be awesome.” Now, I realize that kind of language would be out of place, possibly counterproductive, on the Senate or House floor. Even though the complex will require no state funding, for the government to amend state law genuine political results are necessary. Still, it seems important that we realize our own motives. It’s not as if liking the Surly bill for beer’s sake is so bad. Let’s face it, Minneapolis and St. Paul are beer cities. Summit and Grain Belt are brewed locally, and with a variety of good Wisconsin brews crossing the river it’s safe to say that this is one of the most beer friendly cities in the nation. Hopefully the new legislature will inspire all brewers, from the micro-brewers to you home brewers out there, to take the next step up and make our beer culture even better.

 

Tags: Minneapolis, North Loop