Attachment 2

Public Consultation Summary

Insight Edmonton Community:
Question1:
Of these four example locations, please select all those locations you feel are
appropriate for more than one liquor store to be located across the street from one
another.
Total
Total
1295
Big box shopping areas in a suburban setting eg. Windermere
968
75%
Big box shopping areas in an inner city setting eg. Oliver Square
806
62%
Downtown commercial setting eg. 104 St & 102 Ave
503
39%
Commercial corridor setting eg. 97 St & 107 Ave
425
33%
None of these - Where should liquor stores be located?:
234
18%

Page 1 of

Report: CR_2137rev

Attachment 2
Question2:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: Big box shopping
areas are appropriate locations for more than one liquor store.
Total
1295
319
25%
598
46%
158
12%
107
8%
101
8%
12
1%

Total
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Don't Know

Page 2 of 9

Report: CR_2137rev

Attachment 2
Question 3:
When was the last time you purchased alcohol from a liquor store?
Total
Within the past month
Within the past 6 months
Within the past year
Never, I do not purchase alcohol

Total
1295
887
68%
193
15%
96
7%
119
9%

Question 4:
The current Zoning Bylaw requires a 500 m separation distance (equivalent of 2.5
downtown city blocks) between liquor stores. Please rate your level of satisfaction
with the current Zoning Bylaw requirements. Reference: Zoning Bylaw 12800 - see
Section 85 - Major and Minor Alcohol Sales
Total
Total
1295
Very Satisfied
311
24%
Somewhat Satisfied
302
23%
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
430
33%
Somewhat Dissatisfied
130
10%
Very Dissatisfied
87
7%
Don't Know
35
3%

Page 3 of 9

Report: CR_2137rev

Attachment 2
Question 5:
If the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks) separation distance between
liquor stores is removed in and around big box shopping areas, what outcomes do
you think could arise?
Total
Total
1295
More competitive pricing of liquor products
849
66%
More alcohol related problems (alcoholism, dependency, public
319
intoxication)
25%
More convenient locations available
633
49%
More neighbourhood crime (residential or business)
233
18%
Increased property values
23
2%
Decreased property values
221
17%
Increased traffic
366
28%
Greater variety of liquor products available
672
52%
Reduced parking availability at shopping locations
257
20%
Negative influence for children/teens
268
21%
None of these (No impact)
72
6%
Other:
105
8%

Page 4 of 9

Report: CR_2137rev

Attachment 2
Public Online Survey & Stakeholders Survey:
Question 1:
Of these four example locations, please select all those locations you feel are
appropriate for more than 1 liquor store to be located across the street from one
another.
Total
Total
Big box shopping areas in a suburban
setting eg. Windermere
Big box shopping areas in an inner city
setting eg. Oliver Square
Downtown commercial setting eg. 104 St
& 102 Ave
Commercial corridor setting eg. 97 St &
107 Ave

Page 5 of 9

239
166
69%
132
55%
81
34%
63
26%

Report: CR_2137rev

Public
198
139
70%
116
59%
75
38%
58
29%

Stakeholders
41
27
66%
16
39%
6
15%
5
12%

Attachment 2
Question 2:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: Big box
shopping areas are appropriate locations for more than one liquor store.
Total
Total
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Don't Know

Page 6 of 9

Public

Stakeholders

239
83
35%
70
29%
17
7%
27
11%
41
17%
1

198
73
37%
56
28%
14
7%
23
12%
31
16%
1

41
10
24%
14
34%
3
7%
4
10%
10
24%
0

0%

0%

0%

Report: CR_2137rev

Attachment 2
Question 3:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: The currently
required 500 m separation distance between alcohol sales establishments
creates an unfair condition in the marketplace.
Total
Total
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Don't Know

Public

Stakeholders

239
52
22%
41
17%
23
10%
37
15%
77
32%
9

198
46
23%
37
19%
19
10%
33
17%
54
27%
9

41
6
15%
4
10%
4
10%
4
10%
23
56%
0

4%

5%

0%

Question 4:
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statement: Edmontons
suburban liquor store marketplace can handle the operation of additional liquor
stores.
Total
Total
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Don't Know
Page 7 of 9

Public

Stakeholders

239
53
22%
57
24%
37
15%
31
13%
43
18%
18

198
47
24%
52
26%
29
15%
23
12%
34
17%
13

41
6
15%
5
12%
8
20%
8
20%
9
22%
5

8%

7%

12%

Report: CR_2137rev

Attachment 2
Question 5:
Level of satisfaction with the current 500 m separation distance between liquor
stores
Total
Total
Very Satisfied
Somewhat Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Don't Know

Public

Stakeholders

239
66
28%
39
16%
47
20%
43
18%
43
18%
1

198
51
26%
30
15%
43
22%
35
18%
38
19%
1

41
15
37%
9
22%
4
10%
8
20%
5
12%
0

0%

1%

0%

Question 6:
Please indicate what you think of the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks)
separation distance between liquor stores by choosing one statement to identify
the statement that most closely matches your opinion
Total
Total
Too stringent lesser separation distance
is acceptable
Achieves a good balance
Not stringent enough - greater separation
distance required

Page 8 of 9

Report: CR_2137rev

Public

Stakeholders

239
85
36%
91
38%
63

198
71
36%
68
34%
44

41
7
17%
18
44%
11

26%

22%

27%

Attachment 2

Question 7:
If the required 500 m (2.5 downtown city blocks) separation distance between
liquor stores is removed in and around big box shopping areas, what outcomes
do you think could arise?
Total
Total
More competitive pricing of liquor products
More alcohol related problems (alcoholism,
dependency, public intoxication)
More convenient locations available
More neighbourhood crime (residential or
business)
Increased property values
Decreased property values
Increased traffic
Greater variety of liquor products available
Reduced parking availability at shopping
locations
Negative influence for children/teens
None of these (No impact)
Other:

Page 9 of 9

Report: CR_2137rev

Public

Stakeholders

239
146
61%
78
33%
115
48%
72
30%
11

198
125
63%
63
32%
98
49%
57
29%
11

41
21
51%
15
37%
17
41%
15
37%
0

5%
55
23%
70
29%
124

6%
40
20%
55
28%
111

0%
15
37%
15
37%
13

52%
56

56%
48

32%
8

23%
80
33%
14
6%
23

24%
59
30%
11
6%
17

20%
21
51%
3
7%
6

10%

9%

15%