Arnold Update
Arnold Update
It was good news that the Arnold Board of Aldermen finally realized that the antis were lying when they claimed bans don't hurt business. I spoke to alderman Butch Cooley, ward 4 and asked him why Arnold decided to allow any restaurant with more than 50 seats to wall off a smoking area.
According to him, a new shopping center called Richardson Square is being built, and the developers went to the Arnold City hall and put a note in each of the aldermen's mailboxes that they could not get any restaurants to agree to lease business space there because of the ban. TGI Fridays, Chiles and Chevys had all refused the developer's offers of retail space.
In addition, the Board found business down 20% at the Waffle House, substantially down at Krieger's, a sports bar, and down $15,000/ month at the Denny's. Business had been improving at Culpeppers, but they had been granted an exemption when the ban was first enacted if they walled off a smoking area, and this convinced the board it was unfair to other restaurants not to have the same option. Upon further investigation, much of the business loss at Denny's was due to local construction workers, who had been eating breakfast there going to other locations in south St. Louis County which still had smoking. Lastly, it was noticed the Home Depot across from Denny's had lost the business of these construction workers who were now purchasing their supplies at other building supply stores closer to where they were going for breakfast.
Originally, Arnold only allowed restaurants with liquor licenses to apply for an exemption to wall off a smoking area, and that application would only be granted if applied for when the ban first took effect, and no other exemptions would ever be granted for new restaurants, even if they had liquor licenses, or for any restaurant without a liquor license, at any time. This amended ban recognizes two important facts, first, even restaurants without liquor licenses lose business, and second, new restaurants are less likely to want to locate in jurisdictions with bans.
Arnold is not finished amending it's ban. Legal experts are now advising the Board that Missouri State statute defines any restaurant with fewer than 50 seats and a sign stating "no nonsmoking area is available" as a nonpublic place which can be 100% smoking. The Arnold board is beginning to realize they have no jurisdiction over these nonpublic restaurants and expect to further modify their ban to exempt all these nonpublic restaurants.
February 9, 2006
David W. Kuneman
Arnold eases its ban on smoking
By Cathy Lenny
SPECIAL TO THE POST-DISPATCH
Feb. 08 2006
After 19 months of smoldering debate that pitted personal freedom against the dangers of secondhand smoke, council members tweaked a disputed smoking ban to allow diners to puff away in walled-off smoking sections.
Under the change, restaurants that seat more than 50 diners would have to build floor-to-ceiling barriers and install separate heating and cooling systems so that smoke doesn't waft into the main dining room. Public restrooms must be available within the smoke-free portion of the facility.
Owners of smaller restaurants must continue to enforce the smoking ban, said Mayor Mark Powell.
In July 2004, Arnold council members voted to ban smoking in bars and
restaurants that derive less than 70 percent of their sales from alcohol. But
weeks later, the city amended the law to allow smoking in walled-off,
separately ventilated areas where alcohol is served. But there was a catch: The deadline to apply for a permission to build a smoking section was set at Dec. 31, 2004. Only two eateries were granted the variance.
Restaurant owners complained that because the ban didn't go into effect until November 2004, the deadline didn't give them enough time to gauge whether the ban's effect on sales would be big enough to justify the expense of constructing a smoking section. For months, Arnold council members refused to lift the deadline or budge on other changes to the disputed ban.
That changed last week. The council voted to allow both existing and new
restaurants the option of adding a smoking room, regardless of whether they serve alcohol. The change levels the playing field and allows all restaurants to be treated equally, said Councilman Ron Jerger, who proposed the revision.
"It's unfortunate it took so long to do this," said Councilman Al Ems.
The changes were approved at the Feb. 2 council meeting by a vote of 5-2. Both Jim Edwards and Dave Venable, the original sponsor of the smoking ban, voted against the change.
Matthew Hathaway of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
Read
Arnold snuffs out bid to alter ban on smoking
By CATHY LENNY
Special to the Post-Dispatch
May. 23 2005
City Council snuffs out bid to alter ban
Cost of holding a special election is called too great
Arnold residents will not get the chance to vote on whether to change the Smoke-free Restaurant Act that bans smoking in restaurants - at least not yet.
The City Council voted Thursday night against placing two issues on the August ballot.
The first issue was a proposed amendment to allow restaurants with 50 or more seats to construct a separate smoking room with a walled-off section and a separate ventilation system. The second issue would exempt restaurants with fewer than 50 seats from the smoking ban.
Putting the proposals to a referendum got rejected Thursday night. The council voted 7-0 against both proposals, citing the cost of between $30,000 and $35,000 to hold a special election as too expensive. Councilman Phil Amato, who is employed in the tobacco industry, left the room before the vote.
"I'm not in favor of spending city money like that," Councilman Al Ems said. "But we've got to do something - let it die or move forward."
Even Councilman Dave Venable, who proposed the idea of letting the public decide, voted against the proposals. He said a citywide survey costing $5,000 would provide the same input as an off-year election with a small turnout.
A few people spoke out against putting the issues on the ballot and praised the council for taking a stance on the smoking ban.
"We give the councilmen the responsibility to make the best decision for Arnold residents," Ron Updegrave said. "Don't mess with that."
Larry Travers asked the council not to shirk its responsibility to protect employees.
Some residents said it was not the smoking ban that was causing Arnold to lose business to other areas, but the lack of retail opportunity.
"I go to Fenton and South County twice a week," Bernie Marquardt said. "Arnold doesn't have the stores I need, like Michaels (Arts and Crafts), Office Depot, Best Buy and Circuit City. Those are the stores some of us are desperately looking for."
Gary Luebbers, an opponent of the smoking ban, said he is considering another petition drive to hold an election. Luebbers previously obtained more than 1,200 signatures on a petition last August, but city officials rejected it because it had not been notarized.
The council could consider putting the proposals on the ballot in November or April 2006, when other issues are to be decided. Or a council member from the prevailing side of the vote could revisit the smoking ban ordinance. That is exactly what Council member Randy Crisler said he intends to do. Although he was opposed to holding an election for such minor modifications, he has no intention of letting the issue die.
"I want more pervasive changes," he said. "I want to repeal the ban in its entirety."
Read
Arnold City Council session on smoking ban turns fiery
By Matthew Hathaway
Of the Post-Dispatch
04/18/2005
Councilman resigns, stalks out, rejoins council
Council session on smoking ban firey
A work session called for the Arnold City Council to consider changes to the city's smoking ban turned raucous and bizarre Thursday night.
Councilman Claude "Butch" Cooley, 4th Ward, announced his resignation and stormed out of the meeting less than two hours after he was sworn into office for his third term. Minutes later, he rejoined the council.
The city's controversial ban on smoking in most restaurants has caused flare-ups before, but nothing quite like last week's work session, a usually relaxed meeting format that allows council members to discuss but not vote on legislation.
Cooley and two other council members want to amend the city's ordinance to allow smoking in walled-off areas of 24-hour restaurants. A Denny's and Steak 'n Shake would be affected by the proposal. Arnold Mayor Mark Powell and three other council members want to hold off on that plan until the city can meet with all the restaurant owners in the city.
Arnold's Smoke-Free Restaurant Act 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 bar areas that are walled-off and have separate ventilation, but only if the businesses applied for the variance by last Dec. 31. Only two restaurants qualified for such an exemption.
No vote was taken at Thursday's work session. Council members discussed whether they should amend the ban, to offer restaurants without bars a chance to build special smoking sections. They argued over whether a variance should be given to all restaurants, only all-day establishments or none at all.
Cooley said it was critical for the council to act quickly to allow smoking in Denny's, where the restaurant claims at least one waitress has seen her income from tips cut drop from about $125 per night to less than $70.
A corporate representative from Denny's told the council that the chain could begin work on building a smoking section within days of the council's approval. The company has reported that it might eventually close the restaurant, which is near Interstate 55 and Highway 141, if it cannot allow smoking.
During the meeting, Cooley sparred with Councilman David Venable, 2nd Ward, the author of the ban and primary supporter of leaving it intact. Cooley told Venable that voting to improve the lot of the unnamed Denny's waitress - a mother of three, according to the restaurant - was no different than voting for tax increases to increase salaries in the Fox School District, where Venable teaches.
Venable proposed delaying a decision so the city could study sales figures for restaurants and meet with affected business owners. In an unofficial vote, or poll, the council deadlocked 3-3 whether to delay action. Powell said the council should wait, do more research and possibly consider an amendment that would affect all restaurants, not just 24-hour establishments.
After the poll, Cooley stood up and shouted at council members.
"I can't work with a bunch of people who want to see other people suffer," Cooley told council members before announcing his resignation, about two hours into his third term of office.
Powell told Cooley that resignations must be made in writing, and Cooley rushed out of the council chamber.
"We should have gone over this tonight, and now they want to drag this out for another six months ... This should have been an easy meeting," he said outside the meeting.
Cooley later returned to his seat. When it was his turn to vote in two polls on other issues, he responded, "Whatever you want to do," instead of the customary yes or no. After the meeting, Cooley said he had changed his mind about quitting, but he continued to clash with city officials in the City Hall lobby.
"I can't work with Mr. Venable, and I can't work you, mayor," Cooley told Powell.
Venable, the main target of Cooley's often colorful insults, called the councilman "a drama queen."
Powell said he wasn't surprised that the smoking debate had ignited tensions at the meeting.
"This is a very difficult issue to deal with because of the emotions and because no one wants to change their minds," he said. "I want once and for all to be done with it, and I think we can be soon."
Powell said that he would organize a meeting with restaurant owners as early as this week, and that an official vote on amending the ban could be held next month.
Though he opposes any change to the smoking ban, Venable said he would rather see a single vote on whether to amend the law for all restaurants.
"Mr. Cooley wants an exception for Denny's. If they get it, another restaurant will come, and then another," he said. "I don't want to be here two months from now doing the same thing over and over."
Reporter Matthew Hathaway
E-mail: mhathaway@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 636-500-4108
Read
Arnold will consider alterations in ban on smoking
By Matthew Hathaway
Of the Post-Dispatch
Thursday, Apr. 14 2005
Denny's situation tops the agenda
The Arnold City Council will meet tonight to discuss ways to amend the city's
ban on smoking in most restaurants.
No vote will be taken at the work session, but the first discussion item on the
meeting's agenda is a request to amend the law, to allow smoking at a Denny's
restaurant in a largely abandoned shopping center at Interstate 55 and Highway
141.
In March, 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 smoking ban took effect on Nov. 1.
The Arnold ban has been controversial since it was proposed last summer.
Jefferson County public health officials and anti-smoking activists from St.
Louis and University City were invited to comment on the proposed ban, but many
bar and restaurant owners said they didn't learn of the measure until after the
council had voted on it.
The law 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 areas that are walled-off
and have bar areas with separate ventilation, but only if they applied for the
variance by last Dec. 31. Only two restaurants qualified for such an exemption.
Now Denny's wants a variance, even though it doesn't have a bar and the
deadline for exemptions has passed.
Arnold Mayor Mark Powell defeated an opponent of the ban, Paul Vinson, in last
week's mayoral election. Powell has said he is willing to consider changes in
the law, but he notes that the decision rests with City Council.
The council approved the ban by a vote of 5-2, with Councilman Phil Amato, a
Lorillard Tobacco Co. salesman, chairing the meeting and therefore unable to
vote. Michael Bonnot, who voted in favor of the ban, was defeated at the polls
last week by Randy Crisler, an Applebee's bartender. Crisler said he has been
losing $1,000 in tips every month because of the Arnold ordinance.
Although he opposes the ban, Crisler said it would be unethical for him to cast
a vote that would allow him to make more money. Even without his vote, he said,
he expects the council to amend the law to make it easier for restaurants to
allow smoking in separately ventilated areas.
"We shouldn't penalize restaurants because they don't serve alcohol and they
don't have bars," he said. "In my opinion, the council acted a little hasty on
this, and I think they now realize that."
Seven states and several cities ban smoking in most indoor public places,
although the effects of the bans are still being debated.
In February, 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.
County Executive Charlie A. Dooley has told a business group that he might veto
the proposal, if the council approves it.
Reporter Matthew Hathaway
E-mail: mhathaway@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 636-500-4108
Read
Arnold will revisit ban on smoking in restaurants
By CATHY LENNY
Special to the Post-Dispatch
03/21/2005
Company executive says decline in business may force Denny's to close
Arnold may allow smoking in restaurant
The Arnold City Council has agreed to revisit the ban on smoking in restaurants, but only after Denny's restaurant on Drury Lane threatened to close.
The director of operations for 59 Denny's restaurants told the council that the Arnold location has been suffering since the ban took effect.
Sales in Arnold have been down 14 percent to 15 percent, or about $15,000 a month, Jim Abney told the council Thursday night.
He said that Denny's lease is up for renewal in two years and that it is time to renegotiate that contract. The restaurant, which has been in Arnold for 25 years, also is scheduled to be remodeled in 2006, but Denny's has put capital improvements on hold.
"We are reluctant to begin that process," Abney said. "If the current trend in sales doesn't reverse itself, we may have to leave the city of Arnold.
He cited a situation with a Denny's in Fairview Heights in which the restaurant's dwindling sales were unable to contribute to capital funds and had to close.
Kimberly Hunt, general manager of the Arnold Denny's, reported that seven employees there had quit to find other employment because she was unable to give them enough scheduled hours of work. In addition, she said that many regular customers have stopped eating at that Denny's.
Abney asked the city to allow Denny's to have a separate area for smokers, with a ventilation system.
"Our primary business at night is for smokers," Abney said.
Under city ordinance, a bar that derives at least 70 percent of its sales from alcohol and 30 percent or less from food can allow smoking. Only restaurants with bars are allowed to create a separate area partitioned off for smoking, with the proper ventilation system. No smoking at all is allowed in restaurants that don't have bars.
The council voted to bring the ordinance back to the next work session to discuss whether to allow all restaurants to create separate smoking areas.
Read
Mar 13, 2005
Letters to the Editor,
Webster-Kirkwood Times
Letting people smoke
George Kleine's letter of Mar. 11 suggested I do more research to find out the real cost of letting people smoke. The Research Service of the Library of Congress prepared an economic analysis of the tobacco settlement and found studies of the health costs of smoking varied, but those researchers found smokers' lifetime health expenditures exceeded those of nonsmokers by only 3%. They commented one of the reasons other studies find higher costs is because they do not control for characteristics of smokers beyond smoking status.
This lead me to investigate these other characteristics. The CDC has been conducting BRFSS (behavioral risk factor surveillance system) surveys and found smoking is one-third more common in urban than suburban areas, twice as common among those earning under $30K than those earning more than $50K and smokers are about twice as likely to be blue collar workers. This means typical smokers are exposed to more urban pollution, less likely to be insured and receive preventive health care, and more likely to be exposed to risks of blue collar employment such as industrial pollution, working odd hours, and working outdoors. Also, blue collar workers are nine times as likely to have an accident. All these effects have to be subtracted from smokers' total health costs before the smoking variable can be isolated. In addition, this means nonsmoking members of smokers families (and children) are also one-third more exposed to urban pollution, and of lower socioeconomic status and therefore less likely to be insured and receive preventative care. Lastly, it means coworkers of smokers are also blue collar workers twice as often.
I have reviewed the EPA report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking, the studies of passive smoking were not adjusted for these characteristics more common among smokers and therefore their nonsmoking family members and coworkers. After a quick calculation, it appears 14% of the 19% excess risk of lung cancer in nonsmoking spouses that the EPA found is likely due to one-third more urban residency among families with smokers. I found a study by Garfinkel, former vice president of the American Cancer Society, which after controlling for urban residency found no health effects from secondhand smoke. A recent study by Enstrom and Kabat of 118094 Californians also found after controlling for urbanization, no effects from secondhand smoke. This pattern is also consistent for heart disease, other cancers and children's health- that it is the excess urbanization and lower socioeconomic status that increases the risk, not the smoke. It also is evident blue collar employment is not considered when studies find increased health risk of coworkers of smokers.
He also cited the Helena study which found acute myocardial infraction admissions to their local hospital dropped 40% during a smoking ban. I decided to see if the science is predictable and reproducible. California's smoking ban took effect Jan 1, 1995. From the state's website, their health dept reported total heart disease deaths of 68,312 in 1994 and 67,990 in 1995. The state happened to be conducting a hospital performance study during that time. Total AMI admissions of all hospitals in the study were 41,927 in 1994 and 42,183 in 1995. California had a population of 32 million at the time; Helena has a metro population of 68,000. This is 500 times more, and it is therefore 500 times more likely our county's outcome will be no change in acute myocardial infractions if this ban passes.
He suggested some restaurants could become smokers' clubs so everyone else could enjoy a smoke-free evening out. I don't see the difference between clubs and restaurants which now allow smoking. If past patterns are any indication, the smokers' clubs would also become jammed with nonsmokers just like the smoking restaurants are now, and Mr Kleine would then be calling for bans in the smokers' clubs.
______________________________
David W. Kuneman - The Smoker's Club, Inc.
Midwest Regional Assistant Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter
http://www.smokersclubinc.com
mailto:SharZ28hus@aol.com - Respect Freedom of Choice!
MO: Arnold smoking ban takes hold. Existing restaurants can allow smoking in walled-off and separately ventilated sections, but the businesses must apply for a special permit before the end of this year. The remodeling can be costly and, so far, the Arnold Culpepper's is the only restaurant that has applied for such a permit.
MO: Negotiations lead to compromise on Arnold smoking ban.
MO: Arnold amends restaurant smoking ban. The change will allow existing restaurants that apply to the city by Dec. 31 to install separately ventilated smoking sections in their businesses.
|
