Smoking ban will be trimmed
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
May. 18 2005
When St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald introduced his proposal to
outlaw indoor smoking, he had visions of a completely smoke-free county.
He wanted to ban smoking in all public buildings, from bars and restaurants to
colleges and casinos.
But two months later, the political realities of getting such a comprehensive
bill past a nervous County Council and a skeptical county executive are setting
in.
Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, said he expects to have a bill drafted and ready for
debate in the council by month's end. But he acknowledges that this version
will differ substantially from the strict measure he first proposed in
February.
The new proposal could include exemptions for small bars, bowling alleys,
Harrah's Casino and Lambert Field, he said.
"I don't want to go in detail, but some legitimate issues have been brought to
us and we want to be as fair as we can," Odenwald said. "Obviously I'd prefer
the bill to have no exemptions, but I'm realistic."
The changes would be welcomed by some business owners in the county, who feared
the smoking ban would chase off customers and cost them millions. For others,
the news is disappointing.
"I understand the reality of what Mr. Odenwald is dealing with," said Kathleen
McDarby, co-chairperson of the St. Louis Regional Asthma Consortium. "But I
still have to wonder, are the people working in bars and bowling alleys, or at
the casino, any less important than people working in restaurants. This has
always been about public health and a person's right to a smoke-free
environment."
Odenwald had written several similar pieces of legislation in the past. He said
he never expected to get everything he wanted, because he knew the opposition
would be strong.
"One thing I will not do is pass a bill weakened to the point that it cannot do
what it was meant to do," he said. "I'll be reasonable about this, but if it
changes too much I'll vote it down myself."
From the start, the smoking ban has been a tough sell. While many people -
perhaps even most people - support the measure, the business community has been
uniformly against it.
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley has said he would veto the measure before he
allowed it to hurt county businesses. Odenwald and Councilman Skip Mange,
R-Town and Country, have spent the past month meeting with businesses to
discuss their concerns.
Gary Voss owns two bowling alleys in the county and is the spokesman for
Greater St. Louis Bowling Proprietors. He met with the councilmen to argue for
the bowling alley exemption.
"Probably about 60 percent of our business is made up by smokers," he said.
"When you consider that it takes 3 1/2 hours to bowl on league nights, it's not
hard to see how bad that smoking ban would have been for our business. You can
ask a smoker to go 30 minutes without a smoke, but not 3 1/2 hours."
Odenwald said such arguments made sense to him. He said the revised bill likely
would address the issue by allowing bowling alleys to limit smoking to lounges
with separate ventilation systems.
The same could be done for Harrah's Casino, where officials have said the ban
would send business across the river to the Ameristar Casino in St. Charles
County.
Odenwald said the bill could have a provision allowing the casino to have a
separate room for smoke-free gambling. But the bill would stipulate that if St.
Charles County went smoke-free, the full smoking ban would apply to Harrah's.
Owners of small bars could be exempted. They have argued all along that most of
their customers smoke.
Exempting such a group would not be that difficult, Odenwald said. State law
forbids small bars that gross less than $250,000 a year and make more than half
their money from liquor sales from being open on Sundays. Odenwald said that is
the group that could be exempt under the smoking ban.
"One thing we don't want to do is create a law that unfairly targets one
business group," Odenwald said.
In Arnold, the City Council is scheduled to vote tonight on whether to let
voters decide the future of the city's ban on smoking in restaurants - the
first of its kind in the area. The proposed changes to the seven-month-old ban
would allow smoking in small eateries and would allow large restaurants to
construct walled-off, separately ventilated smoking areas.
Matthew Hathaway of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
County wants more study before approving smoking ban
April 24, 2005
Read
Results are foggy on smoking ban impact
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
04/09/2005
Last May, Dan Volmert opened Hotshots Sports Bar and Grill in Fenton, an 8,000-square-foot restaurant in southwest St. Louis County.
The bar's location, between the DaimlerChrysler plant and the Fenton Business Park, seemed ideal for capitalizing on a hungry lunch crowd and a fanatic fan base.
But now, with the county seriously considering a ban on indoor smoking, the spot seems less perfect than it once did.
Jefferson County is just four miles away, and Volmert estimates that the ban, if approved, would send at least 40 percent of his business across the county line.
"I'm not running a fine dining, sit-down restaurant here," Volmert said.
"My customers don't come in, eat and then leave. They hang around for an entire game. And if they can't smoke while they're here, a lot of them are not going to hang around at all."
The St. Louis County Council opens its doors Tuesday for the second round of public hearings on the controversial Indoor Clean Air Act, a measure that would outlaw smoking in all public buildings. The central topic this time around will likely be whether such a ban would hurt businesses in the county.
Since Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, introduced the proposal in February, it has been the source of heated debate. Supporters say the ban is a matter of public health. Opponents say government is going too far.
Many critics worry that such a move will cost the county businesses and jobs. Last month, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told business leaders in Maryland Heights that he would veto the measure before he'd let that happen.
The problem is, when it comes to the economic effects of smoking bans, everyone has an opinion, and evidently, a study to back that opinion up.
"You see one study and it says that the ban hurt Boston or New York or wherever, and then you see another one and it says the ban didn't," said Councilwoman Hazel Erby, D-University City. "It can be confusing. You don't know which one to trust."
St. Louis County is certainly not the only area wrestling with this issue.
The push for a smoke-free society has picked up steam in recent years. Bans are under debate in Georgia, Oregon, Colorado and New Jersey.
Last week the Montana Legislature approved a bill that will make Big Sky Country the 10th state to approve a widespread ban. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island have similar laws.
In each of these states, critics promised economic ruin for businesses forced to go smoke-free. But in the past few years there have been studies conducted in California, Massachusetts, New York and Maine that suggest smoking bans have not hurt businesses.
During that same period, opponents of smoking bans have produced studies that seem to prove otherwise. But cigarette companies paid for many of the studies used to attack smoking bans. Philip Morris has funded, through various organizations, more than a dozen such studies.
"It really depends on who you believe," said Gregory Connolly, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. "A study is only as good as the group conducting it."
Connolly took part in a recent Harvard study that reviewed Massachusetts tax records for all restaurants, bars and nightclubs from July through December of last year, the first six months of a statewide smoking ban.
Researchers compared that data to previous years, accounting for inflation, and found that tax collection on meals rose about 9 percent and alcoholic beverage excise tax remained steady.
"Elected officials are always confronted with anecdotes of gloom and doom, but the hard data just does not support it," Connolly said. "The studies out there, not funded by tobacco industries, all show that bans do no real harm to businesses."
Of course, said Connolly, the bans do not necessarily help business either.
And according to David Kuneman, one of the loudest critics of the proposed St. Louis ban, this can lead to real economic problems in the long run.
"Those studies are technically correct," he said. "But they really don't gauge the effects of bans in the long run, over several years. Not helping over a long period of time, hurts."
Kuneman, a retired chemist and longtime smoker, delivered his own study to the County Council last week. In it, he points out data from the U.S. Department of Commerce that shows how the restaurant industry grew substantially slower in states with smoking bans.
"Those states may not have lost business, but they didn't add business either," he said.
Initially the Massachusetts, California and New York restaurant associations openly opposed smoking bans in their states. Officials from all three have since said the bans do not seem to be hurting businesses.
"We don't hear any complaints about the smoking ban anymore," said Jordan Rasmussen, spokesperson for the California Restaurant Association.
"Businesses reported a dip at first, but they seem to have rebounded. It's just the way it is now, and we think it might actually be something of a boon for business."
But, according to Pat Bergauer, Missouri is not California. Bergauer, vice president of the Missouri Restaurant Association, said Missouri has more smokers and a less forgiving climate.
"There are more restaurants with patios in California for a reason," Bergauer said. "Getting sent outside is not that big a deal there."
Bergauer has seen all of the studies, both for and against smoking bans. She said she does not need a study to tell her what she already knows.
"Some professor looking at numbers with a bunch of undergraduate students is not going to prove whether businesses in this county will suffer or not," she said.
Bergauer said restaurants with a high percentage of smoking clients, like pubs and sports bars, will suffer. She also thinks restaurants bordering other states and counties will suffer.
"You have to look at the whole picture," she said. "You can't just blanket the area with one policy and think someone is not going to lose out."
Remarks Made to St. Louis County Council Committe on Smoke Free Ordinance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1383271/posts?page=8
Dooley tells business group he may veto smoking ban if he finds it harmful
By Clay Barbour
Of the Post-Dispatch
03/25/2005
St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told a business group that he would veto the proposal to ban smoking in all public buildings before he let the measure hurt businesses in the county.
Dooley made the statement Wednesday during a private meeting with some members of the Maryland Heights Chamber of Commerce. It was his strongest comment to date on the proposal and could be a hint of a showdown between the County Council and Dooley.
Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, proposed the ban last month. Since then, the County Council has received hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls regarding the proposal. On Tuesday, more than 100 people packed the council chambers to debate the issue.
Reaction to the proposal is split among cities in the county. On the council, Odenwald and Skip Mange, R-Town and Country, support the ban. The other five members have not committed.
Likewise, Dooley, a smoker, has remained officially neutral on the issue, saying only that he questioned whether government was overstepping its authority. He discussed the proposal Wednesday with the president's council of the Maryland Heights Chamber of Commerce. The group's executive director, Kim Braddy, said Dooley said he would veto the proposal if he thought it would hurt business.
Braddy said Dooley also said the ban was proposed because a council member is considering a run for county executive next year. Braddy said he did not mention a name. Odenwald ran for county executive last year in the Republican primary.
Mac Scott, a spokesman for Dooley, said he has not made up his mind on the legislation and is reserving his opinion until the bill is in its final form.
Reached by phone Thursday, Odenwald said he was surprised to hear of Dooley's comments, especially about a potential bid for county executive. "Mr. Dooley knows my interest in this issue dates back a long time," he said.
http://www.stltoday.com
Smoking ban in Arnold inspires election challenge
By Matthew Hathaway
Of the Post-Dispatch
Sunday, Mar. 27 2005
As St. Louis County considers a ban on lighting up in public places, the first
municipality in the region to snuff out smoking in restaurants finds its restrictions
under fire.
Randy Crisler, an Applebee's bartender, says he's losing $1,000 in tips every
month because of an Arnold ordinance that bans smoking in most restaurants.
That's enough to make him want to moonlight as an unpaid city councilman in
Jefferson County's largest city.
"Bar sales are down 40 percent after 8 p.m., and that just happens to be the
time I work," said Crisler, 30, who is running against two-term councilman
Michael Bonnot, who supports the smoking ban. Crisler said: "It was a hasty law
and it was a mistake. . . . It's the reason I decided to run."
Crisler is part of what might become a smokers revolt on April 5, election day
for municipal offices in Arnold. Two pro-smoking candidates are challenging
incumbent councilmen, and Mayor Mark Powell faces a challenge from Paul Vinson,
a nonsmoker who says the ban hurts business in a city already saddled with
shrinking sales-tax receipts.
"I think we're going to find out on election day whether people want the ban or
not," said Councilman David Venable, who wrote the ban and is not up for
re-election this year. "If the voters of Arnold kick Mark Powell out, this
ordinance is going to be overturned. If Powell wins, it's a sign that the ban
should stay as it is."
But even if the anti-ban candidates lose, Arnold's ordinance - called the
Smoke-Free Restaurant Act - might not survive in its current form. Powell
supported the ban but now says it might be too stringent. At least one
restaurant says it will close its doors unless the measure is watered down.
Last month, St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, proposed
banning smoking in all indoor public places, including casinos, hotels,
restaurants and bars in St. Louis County. Since then, the County Council has
received hundreds of e-mails, letters and phone calls about the proposal. On
Wednesday, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley told a business group that he
might veto the proposal. It is unclear whether there would be enough votes on
the council to override a veto.
In St. Louis County, supporters of the smoking ban say restrictions don't have
a major impact on local businesses. But in Arnold, that's in dispute.
The Arnold ban has been controversial since July 1, the day the City Council
approved it. Bar and restaurant owners said they didn't learn of the measure
until after the council had voted on it. Jefferson County public health
officials and anti-smoking activists from St. Louis and University City did
learn of the vote, and they pressed council members to approve a measure that
they called "brave" and "historic."
The Arnold law, which took effect Nov. 1, bans smoking in most restaurants and
bars that derive less than 70 percent of their sales from alcohol. Restaurants
that serve alcohol can allow smoking in walled-off, separately ventilated bar
areas, but only if they applied for the variance by last Dec. 31. Only two
restaurants qualified for the exemption.
Last month, the City Council agreed to revisit the ban after a Denny's
restaurant that has been open for more than 20 years threatened to close. An
official with the national chain told council members that sales at the Arnold
location have been down about 15 percent - or $15,000 a month - since the ban.
Denny's wants a variance, even though it doesn't have a bar and the deadline
for exemptions has passed.
Powell said he expected the City Council to take up the issue next month. And
he said that no matter who prevailed on election day, the law could be changed.
"I believe the City Council made a good decision based on real health issues,
but I don't think they're going to turn their noses up at proposals to tweak
the law," Powell said.
Powell says he isn't yet convinced that the ban hurts business at restaurants.
Sales at Denny's could be suffering for other reasons, he said. The restaurant
is in one of the county's oldest shopping centers, near Interstate 55 and
Highway 141, where its biggest tenant, Kmart, closed two years ago. The city is
seeking about $20 million in public financing to redevelop the site, as
commercial and residential development rapidly spreads south down I-55.
As backers of the ban and their foes square off, some in Arnold are searching
for a compromise. One idea would let all restaurants build walled-off smoking
sections. Some critics of the ban, including Crisler and Vinson, say it's a
change they could support. But Venable says the city would be foolish to
backpedal, especially if St. Louis County moves forward on a total ban on
smoking in public places.
"We ought to be consistent with what they do," Venable said. "Right now, we
should be watching what they do."
Seven states and several cities ban smoking in most indoor public places,
though the effects of the bans are still being debated. This month, Houston
leaders rejected a ban similar to one being proposed in St. Louis County but
did prohibit smoking in restaurants.
St. Louis County Debating Smoking Ban
March 22, 2005
By Kelly Jackson
(KSDK) - Supporters say a smoking ban is good for public health. Opponents say it's bad for business.
People on both sides of the issue voiced their opinions Tuesday at the first of two public hearings.
One expert in favor of the proposed smoking ban presented information about the dangers of second hand smoke.
The first to testify was professor James Repace from Maryland. Professor Repace is an internationally recognized expert on second hand smoke, having published more than 60 articles on the subject over 30 years, "Secondhand smoke kills, therefore it's a hazard that is legitimately dealt with by decision makers at this level."
Arnold and Ballwin recently banned smoking, despite the outcry by local bar and restaurant owners who said the ban would hurt business.
Repace disputes the claims against the ban and includes a graph from his Website that shows business at California restaurants and bars went up after bans in the mid and late 90s.
Then another expert, David Kuneman, a retired pharmaceutical researcher, who is against the ban, says second hand smoke isn't as bad as it used to be, "Everyone was exposed to a lot more secondhand smoke in the 1970s than in the 1990s."
This debate was started when County Councilman Kurt Odenwald introduced the Clear Indoor Air Act. This ordinance would ban smoking in all public buildings, from restaurants to the airport. It would cover all the cities in St. Louis County, including the unincorporated areas.
Odennwald explained, "Back in the early 1990s, I wrote and introduced the ordinance to ban smoking in our schools and daycare centers. I did it back then for the same reason I'm doing it now. Secondhand smoke, I believe is a real health risk."
Alderman Charles Gatton introduced a similar proposal in Ballwin. That measure passed in January with great opposition from business owners, "It will give the restaurant owners, the business owners of Ballwin exactly what they're asking for, a level playing field."
However, Michael Moeller, the mayor of Maryland Heights, doesn't agree, "Maryland Heights attracts 10 million visitors annually, many of them casino patrons. But those people also stay at hotels, eat at restaurants and stop for a drink at our bars and restaurants. Imagine if just 10 percent of them decided to go elsewhere to spend their tourism dollars in order to have the right to smoke."
Moeller added, "In Maryland Heights and across St. Louis county, a significant portion of businesses, an untold number of jobs, and a great deal of tax revenue will be lost by adopting the ban on smoking."
Tuesday's session was for business owners and city leaders. On April 12, the public can attend two hearings at St. Louis County Council chambers.
Public Hearings - Two Sessions
April 12
Session 1: 2:00-4:00 p.m.
Session 2: 7:00-9:00 p.m.
Four of the seven council members must pass the ordinance, then County Executive Charlie Dooley must sign it.
The council could vote on the issue as early as mid-April.
Arnold and Ballwin recently passed no smoking ordinances, but the bans haven't been in effect long enough to gauge the impact on businesses in those areas.
Banning smoking is one thing. Enforcing it is another.
The St. Louis County Council is wrestling with a proposal that would ban
indoor smoking countywide, a measure that has officials and the public
debating the philosophical and economic implications of shutting the door
on smokers.
But Dr. Dolores Gunn, the director of the county's health department, and
Jim Baker, the director of administration, have warned council members to
keep in mind that enforcing a smoking ban will cost money.
"There are 4,000 facilities in the county where the ban would need to be
enforced," Gunn said during Tuesday's Justice and Health Committee meeting.
"And right now, we don't have the resources to do it."
The health department has a budget this year of $46.8 million, all of which
comes from fees and taxes set aside specifically to fund the department.
Introduced late last month by Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, the
ban would outlaw smoking in all public buildings, from the airport to
restaurants and bars to colleges and casinos.
If approved, it would carry fines ranging from $50 to $500 and serve as a
bookend to Odenwald's 1990 ordinance that banned smoking in elementary,
secondary and preschools.
Odenwald said the 1990 ordinance did not increase the cost of code
enforcement, so he doesn't expect money to be an issue with his current
proposal.
"We may see some added administrative expense, but it shouldn't be much,"
he said. "I don't envision hordes of smoking police going into restaurants
across the county. We already have inspectors out there checking all kinds
of stuff."
Still, according to Baker, the County Council should give some thought to
how the ban will work.
"There are ways to do it," Baker said. "A fee on business licenses or a tax
on the sale of cigarettes or something. We can help them with that
decision. But they need to give the matter some thought."
