All right, Tim. I've stayed away from the recent exchanges, but you've asked and now I'll weigh in.
on 5/28/04 12:00 PM, Tim Erickson wrote: > I am going to ask once more, that we try and remove the personalities > from this discussion. It's about time. > > The attacks on Dave Thune appear irrelevant. And a discussion over > over the "sincerity" of Kevin (from the Eagle Street Grill) appears > fairly pointless. We're not going to come to any kind of agreement on > that issue - nor should it really influence the outcome of this > decision. Tom Swift has gotten away with calling people more names than a church roster. It's always open season on politicians, generally, but this stuff is conjecture, pure and simple, having nothing to do with the smoking ban. Besides, Dave Thune's mismanagement of his loans is a far cry from the exploitation of the STAR grant program by several dozen retailers in both his ward and several others, all filtered through so-called community development councils. Most of the bar owners, real estate agents and service dealers along West 7th have flourished under taxpayer funding, either direct to their business or by the business brought to them on a silver platter by such publicly subsidized private operations like Xcel Center where the wealthy Wild reap enormous profits with not a dime of equity investment. They get it all. Now, some citizens financiers of all of those businesses want to be able to patronize them without choking on the air inside them. > > My own support or lack of support for the Smoking ban has nothing to > do with Dave Thune's gallery or Kevin's sincerity. > > The legitimate issues are hand, in my opinion, are: > > 1) Will a smoking ban really put people out of business? If the smoking ban puts anyone out of business, it'll be because they've mismanaged themselves into bankruptcy. Fans will never stop coming to the "X" for any number of events - games, concerts, festivals, conventions - simply because the bars and restaurants surrounding it are smoke-free. In fact I will wager anyone willing to take a sucker bet that business for those places will increase and broaden to flourish *between* games, concerts, festivals, and conventions. The same will be true of neighborhood bars because they're just that - neighborhood bars. Patrons of neighborhood bars are not going to move out of the city because they can't smoke there, and they're at their neighborhood bars to drink. They may drink a little less since there is, in fact a direct correlation between smoking and the amount of alcohol consumed in any one sitting. Drinking urges increased smoking among addicts and increased smoking and the air around it dries out the throat and mouth, thus driving greater alcohol sales. (Of course, few drinkers know that both addictions dry them out, but the illusion persists that one offsets the other. It just feels that way.) This is the real squeal for bar owners: smoking drives increased liquor sales. Huge profits in liquor sales as it is - smoking may diminish some of that profit if patronage stays the same. But the record shows that overall patronage increases after going smoke-free. Moreover, since most patrons of bars and restaurants are there for socializing, they'll find the competition has the same smoke-free atmosphere as their favorite watering hole. That means business pretty much would stay even if no one new showed up. > > 2) Do the health risks of second hand smoke justify the > policy, even if some businesses MIGHT go out of business? Absolutely. The health risks of second-hand smoke, yes, but no health risk should never be subordinated by economics. Again, only improperly capitalized and/or mismanaged businesses would go belly-up - but rarely, if ever, as a result of public policy (unless eminent domain has bought them out). > > 3) What are the rights of business owners and patrons in this case? Businesses are licensed public accommodations - not wholly private - when they open their doors to all potential customers. The licenses issued require that they meet a litany of standards for protecting the public health - food spoilage, serving and storage equipment and utensils, surface contamination in all areas, fire contingencies - exits and extinguishers, even structural integrity in the building. Breathable air and potable water are among them. Patrons deserve to know that the city (and state) have protected them in case the business owner has not (many did not until protections were enacted). > > 4) If the city imposes this ban, is there anything that the city > can or should do to either reduce the risk for bar owners > or compensate them for potential losses? Nothing more than a smoking ban - which will compensate them plenty when the other 65%-80% of the population feels comfortable patronizing their establishments. It is not the City's business to protect anyone from "potential" losses, it's the City's *duty* to protect the public safety and health - that's it. We've already financed private businesses around here far more than we've financed the general health and welfare of the community, especially in recent years. We are not responsible for business success and we're not responsible for their failure. We're sure as hell not responsible for maintaining their alcohol profits, which is what this flap is really about - not their ability to make money. If bar owners actually lose big money, let them prove it was because of the smoking ban and not mismanagement. (I say they cannot. So would a court.) Some might see a temporary dip in alcohol sales at the outset, but not enough to put them out of business. Even the screaming owner of Grandma's in Duluth cited only his first *month's* receipts (April to May, 2003) as indicative of the damage done by that city's ban (51% drop in beverage sales with much less a drop in food sales). Almost all of that has bounced back. But we've heard little about that. Oh, yes, some reduction in alcohol sales is to be expected given the information above, but an overall increase in business can also be expected. > > 5) The role of the city in regulating private businesses, in > this case restaurants and bars. See #3 above. > > 6) Other suggestions...? Let's put all the hysteria into perspective. Most of the opponents are those with a generally greedy axe to grind and not anywhere near a majority of the general public. I say calm down. Protect the public health. Stop trying to scare people into setting aside the vastly more important public health issues for protecting the most marginal bar operations (the restaurants of note really can't wait for this to go into effect and already know they'll make big money when it does). On balance - this is a slam dunk for everyone involved, perceptions and fears notwithstanding. Andy Driscoll Crocus Hill/Ward 2 ------ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
