Cook County Ban Update
February 9, 2007
By Thomas V. Booth, Jr. The Southtown editorial staff recently opined in this section of the paper that Orland, Tinley Park and Oak Forest should not suspend enforcement of the no-smoking ordinances they recently passed. Their reasoning, boiled down, was -- it's for the good of the public health, and it's therefore the right thing to do. No argument here, except who's doing it creates an unfair burden on certain members of the hospitality business. The reality is that pubs, taverns and certain restaurants that have a thriving bar business are most adversely affected by such ordinances. If neighboring towns have more favorable smoking laws, smoking customers can and will go there. This was painfully clear Jan. 2 to 19. The smoking clients left in droves and businesses took a 30 to 50 percent loss in sales. They have recovered somewhat, but not completely yet. The losses will be back when the laws are enforced if the other towns do not follow suit. We already know most towns will not. New Lenox, Homer Glen, Frankfort and Lockport have no laws. Palos Heights, Palos Park, Lemont, Crestwood, Midlothian, and Orland Hills will permit smoking inside establishments under certain guidelines. We are and will be surrounded by competitors that are in different towns, only minutes away, which have a huge advantage competing for our customers who smoke, and those who choose to socialize with them. These laws obviously should not be made at the local level. Local politicians should allow people the freedom to go to places that allow smoking. Non-smokers should not go to places that allow smoking if that is their choice. There are plenty of choices for non-smokers in Orland, Tinley and Oak Forest where no smoking is already the policy. Why take away the choices of certain establishments, their staffs and their customers? It looks as if the state will. Why the rush to eliminate the choice at the local level? Let the state be the bad guy. At least the playing field will be level, and we'll all be in the same boat. We'll deal with that on a customer competition basis. Our smoking customers will adapt to the uniformity of enforcements, or they will choose to stay home, or move out of state. It is their freedom of choice. The village of Orland, Tinley and Oak Forest can choose to hold off until the state creates a level playing field. Once before they chose to reconsider the issue as new information came to light. They can choose to do it again. The Southtown editorial staff can choose to re-evaluate the issue based on the recent information that the State will vote on the issue, and Cook County most likely will vote to reshape the county law to conform with the Chicago ordinance starting date, July 08. By then the State law will pre-empt this whole mess. Choose to be fair, that's all we ask. Thomas V. Booth, Jr. is co-owner of Sam Maguire's Irish Pub and Restaurant in Orland Park. Read
Cook County suburbs face smoking deadline February 9, 2007
By Stanley Ziemba, Tribune staff reporter. Freelance reporters Jeff Borgardt, Barbara Dargis and Janice Neumann contributed to this report With a countywide ban on smoking in public places scheduled to take effect next month, several south and southwest suburbs are scrambling to craft required ordinances that could be as stringent as the county's or more favorable to businesses. Each Cook County community must enact a smoking ordinance by March 15 or risk losing to the county any money from fines levied against violators. Towns could adopt bans similar to the county's, or they could ban smoking but delay the effective date to give businesses time to adjust. They also could adopt bans that exempt freestanding bars and bar areas in restaurants and/or require businesses to put up barriers between smoking and non-smoking areas. Some towns, including Chicago Ridge and Alsip, have adopted measures that leave it up to restaurants and bars to decide for themselves whether they want to allow smokers to light up. Chicago Heights is considering going that route. Meanwhile, Oak Forest, Tinley Park and Orland Park, which had bans but lifted them for bars in time for the Bears' appearance in the Jan. 21 NFC Championship game, continue to debate whether to return to protecting public health or modify them to protect local businesses. Matteson also is considering a ban. Flossmoor officials are planning to adopt an ordinance similar to the Illinois Clean Air Act, which requires that specific areas be designated inside public places for smoking. All are trying to strike a balance between the known health hazards of secondhand smoke and financial concerns of business owners. "It's a public health issue," said Sean McDermott, a spokesman for the Cook County Department of Public Health, at a Chicago Ridge Village Board meeting this week. But Ashraf Rabah of Jesse's Tavern in Chicago Ridge echoed the feelings of many business people. "Our customers will simply take their business to places where they can smoke," he said. If towns do not implement some kind of smoking ordinance, they will be subjected to the county ban on all smoking in public places, including bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and casinos. Some county commissioners are seeking to delay the ban until July 2008, but that's not likely to happen, officials said. With an eye toward allowing smoking under limited conditions, Tinley Park trustees this week hired a national consulting firm to examine the economic impact of outlawing smoking. Washington, D.C.-based NERA & Associates is to provide the village with a statistical analysis of what effect bans have on bar and restaurant revenues in similar communities. The study, expected to be finished this month at a cost of about $25,000, could result in the village continuing the suspension of its ban. Meanwhile, Orland Park and Oak Forest officials are hoping the Illinois General Assembly will come to their rescue and pass a statewide smoking ban. They see that as leveling the playing field by eliminating the argument by businesses that customers will go where they can smoke. State legislation has been introduced, and a vote could come this spring. Orland Park trustees this week unanimously approved a resolution supporting a statewide ban, and Oak Forest's City Council is expected to do so Tuesday. But a state ban isn't likely to happen before Cook's law takes effect, leaving most Cook County towns just weeks to decide on a course of action. Oak Forest's and Orland Park's existing bans are on hold until March 14. Tinley Park's moratorium is scheduled to end Feb. 21. Should Oak Forest decide to leave its ban unchanged, the city hopes to help businesses attract more non-smokers through improved marketing, Mayor JoAnn Kelly said. sziemba@tribune.com Read
Rollback of county smoking ban stalls February 8, 2007
By Jonathan Lipman Staff writer A proposal to delay Cook County's smoking ban until July 2008 won committee approval Wednesday -- but it may be an empty victory. The rollback measure passed out of Commissioner Elizabeth Gorman's public health subcommittee on a 3-to-1 vote, but county board rules likely will leave the bill stuck in another committee until after the ban takes effect March 15. "I'm not going to sit on it, I'm going to call it, but I probably won't call it until after March 15," said health committee chairman Jerry Butler (D-Chicago). Butler's committee must pass on the bill before it makes it to the full board. He was the lone opposing vote in Gorman's subcommittee meeting. "We've got no time, with the budget," Butler said. "I'd have to have a meeting almost instantly after the budget was passed, and this isn't that big a deal." So suburban towns will be on their own to decide whether to go along with the existing county smoking ordinance -- which bans smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places -- or craft smoking rules of their own. Any rules approved by a village board trump the county ordinance. The measure that passed out of Gorman's committee Wednesday would make the county law more closely mirror Chicago's smoking ban. The ban still would go into effect March 15 for restaurants, but would be delayed until July 2008 for bars, taverns and the bar areas of restaurants, just like Chicago. Anti-smoking forces squared off with business owners at the committee meeting, though turnout was low compared with the high-charged fights both sides waged in Chicago and the county when the issue was first decided a year ago. "Don't retreat, don't give people ammunition to say that it's not that important," American Cancer Society regional vice president David Baldwin pleaded with board members. "Stay strong and stay courageous." Tom Booth, co-owner of Sam Maguire's pub in Orland Park, said bars in that village have lost half of their business since the village adopted a smoking ban, even though the pub is packed on weekends. "Sunday through Thursday is when we're competing for customers, and they're going to non-smoking locations if there are other options," Booth said. The patchwork of laws from community to community has left some village boards struggling over what to do. Orland Park, Tinley Park and Oak Forest all recently voted to delay enforcement of their bans after an outcry from business owners. Although Gorman (R-Orland Park) arranged for the hearing Wednesday, voted against the original ban and called for a delay when the ban originally was debated last year, she abstained from voting on the rollback proposal. "I thought it was inappropriate for me, as the chair of the public health committee, to vote for it," Gorman said. "I brought it up to open up the dialogue because it's such a messy issue." 01/27/2007 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing this letter in an effort to explain how the smoking ban has effected me. I work in a pub in Arlington Heights. Our location is on Rand Road in between Arlington Heights Road & Palatine Road. At first it was a little difficult to notice if the smoking ban effected us. January is a slow month. It's after the holidays and the bills are due. As the next couple of weeks had passed, it became apparent that it was effecting my place of employment. I work the day shift Monday through Friday. This is my full time job. It is not a part-time job or is it a job for extra spending money. This is how I pay my bills and being a home owner, I have accumulated quite a few. I did this purchase knowing that I have a steady income at my current job. I have worked at my present place of employment for 10 years and have been days for almost 3 of those years. There are alot of options for people to spend their money and people work hard for it. A place of business needs to give that customer a reason to continue to spend their hard earned money in an establishment. We serve great food, buy every sports package available from our satellite company, have in-house games, large music selection and give great service. We also allowed smoking. I am a hard worker and always have been. Any employer I have ever worked for will agree with this statement. I have also worked more than one job for various reasons. I have been in this business for more than 26 years. I have built up a nice clientele at my present job. And in the last three weeks, I have watched it dwindle to practically nothing. We have cut down our staff due to the lack of revenue from these customers. It is unfair that a pub down the street from me has my customers just because they can smoke in their establishment and not in my place of employment. Even with everything we have to offer, there is just one thing missing. Even when they will be under the same smoking ban in March, that doesn't mean I will get my customers back. They have met new people, including the staff. They may even consider themselves to have a new "home", or they just might travel to another pub that allows smoking. I work in a smoking establishment by my choice. With each community enabling a smoking ban at different times, it is putting a stress on neighboring businesses. Corporate businesses will survive before a small business owner will. If a business cannot survive through this change, that will also mean I will not have a job. Cigarettes are not illegal to smoke. The public (for the most part) is aware that smoking is not good for your health. The same is true for alcohol. It is public knowledge that it is unhealthly. But, it is still legal to drink alcohol & smoke cigarettes and people are still going to do it. Social gatherings are also a necessity for human nature. Taking the choice away from a business owner of a pub due to health reasons is not going to prevent, cure or stop smoking, but it will close a business. Revenue for each community will have the domino effect. The sale of cigarettes, closing of businesses, the sales tax & various licenses for these businesses, etc. I am requesting a recant to the smoking ban as soon as possible. I would like the opportunity to get back my clientele before it's too late. There needs to be someway to meet halfway on this issue. Other communities have compromised. I have ideas and I am sure others have also. Let's make an effort to work together. It will benefit everyone, including the people who work
in this business.
Thank You.
Sincerely,
Barbra Franz
Commissioner asks to delay ban till '08 January 24, 2007
By Jonathan Lipman Staff writer A proposal to delay Cook County's smoking ban until July 2008 will get a hearing within months, promised south suburban County Commissioner Elizabeth Gorman. "There has to be a fair and equitable way to implement this -- where it's not negatively impacting that area -- where my district lies," said Gorman (R-Orland Park). "It's nonsensical." Gorman introduced the proposal Tuesday and said she'd soon call a meeting of the public health committee, which she leads, to consider it. The county's ban on smoking in nearly all public places is set to take effect March 15. It affects the unincorporated areas of Cook County and any village or city that does not have its own smoking ordinance. Tinley Park, Orland Park and Oak Forest imposed smoking bans at the beginning of this year and voted Friday to lift the bans at least temporarily after complaints from business owners. Gorman said she'd like to see the issue decided statewide. But for now, she wants the county to push back its ban to match Chicago's. The city's ban already is in effect for restaurants, but bars and taverns have until July 2008 to comply. Gorman said she believes she has enough votes for passage, but she will get fierce resistance from the ban's original sponsor, North Side Commissioner Mike Quigley (D-Chicago). "There is not a single study out there in the world that's shown that smoking bans have a negative economic impact," Quigley said. "Moving this direction is a horrible mistake." Commissioner Joan Murphy (D-Crestwood) said she supported Gorman's call for a rollback until there is a statewide ban. Read
The right to be risky and stupid
January 21, 2007
Business owners in Tinley Park, Oak Forest and Orland Park say they've been hit hard by smoking bans. They join the long list of those crippled by the Big Mama health police.
Restaurant and bar businesses are failing, owners told the Daily Southtown, even as customers flee to neighboring communities like Orland Hills, where smoking officially is discouraged but is not forbidden. Bar owners have been counting the cash they are not taking in, as the playoffs begin and the Bears are in. The customers have not been in. Hence Friday's emergency meeting.
Smoking bans everywhere have driven business patrons out of their cities to adjoining suburbs for dinner and libations. Minneapolis, Detroit, New Jersey suburbs and cities in the United Kingdom all have reported devastating business losses because of smoking bans.
Nonsmoking customers may begin to frequent once-hazy places they previously avoided, but in the end, business can be expected to decline; especially when the ominous countywide ban kicks in. Here's why: The smokers will simply stay in.
We may see a new house party trend rising. There's no mark-up on the beer at my place. And you don't have to tip, either. At home, you can let the place be as stinking stale as you want. Or you can smoke outside within a risque 2 feet of your home. It's pure hedonism.
The standard defense of smoking bans is that we are protecting employees and nonsmoking customers from the hazards of secondhand smoke -- dangers that seem to be common sense.
But really, what we have is not proof; we have statistics and probabilities and risks.
And even if it could be proven that secondhand smoke will give nonsmokers lung cancer, it should not matter, because no one is forcing anyone to inhale.
Before the health police scream and stomp and the General Assembly infringes on the personal destructive freedom of every Illinois resident, hear me out; maybe we can all, in an act of unity, avoid slipping into the prohibition-rather-than-regulation funk.
Please don't save me from myself, and don't choose my risks for me. Every individual must choose his or her own special brand of stupidity and risky behavior.
So, what about those employees?
What about them? I don't want to be cold, but workers, like patrons, are free to choose other, less hazardous work. Some people do not become bartenders because they can't stand the obnoxious behavior of drunken patrons. This is a choice. I chose not to become a steel construction worker because I do not want to take the risk inherent in walking on narrow beams hundreds of feet above city streets. I might fall. It is not a certainty; it is not even a probability. But it is a risk, and I won't take that one. Bar and restaurant employees are not indentured servants.
I hear the whining already, but it is true. Stop whining and apply at a nonsmoking restaurant.
There aren't enough of them? Gee, maybe that's because the free market has not so dictated, because enough regular Joes and Janes don't demand it. The folk are satisfied with a nonsmoking section and good ventilation, and they avoid the super-smoky joints.
This is not economic rocket science.
Public buildings, like courthouses, libraries, or government offices should be smoke-free because people must go there. They have no choice if they have government business. But private business is a different animal. Don't like the stench? Find a smoke-free joint.
The Southland municipalities that banned smoking were virtually begging business to go next door. And apparently they were not anticipating a great season for the Bears, either. But there's a fix for that folly; soon the whole county will fall under the restriction, and the flight will be to Will or Lake counties -- or the house party phenom will explode.
Fleeing patrons was not an issue for Californians, who were out front in the race to ban smoking years back.
Stepping outside for a smoke on a tile patio is pleasant under the palm trees. This is Greater Chicago, not Santa Monica, and the weather can be wicked.
Speaking of Chicago, the impact of the city's ban has yet to be fully weighed. Chicagoans have a long tradition of getting around stupid and inconvenient laws, so the jury is still out, while the tobacco speakeasies form, and foi gras is served on ashtrays in cloudy back rooms.
Will the whole of Cook County experience tobacco flight? Will Illinois residents run to Indiana for smoky pleasure? Unlikely. Those who flee from their hometown haunts risk DUI on the way back. Drop the ban and let people smoke and drink close to home, I say, where the cab ride is affordable. Keep the tipsy in Tinley.
The answer is to allow businesses to cater to both types of customers, freely, as demand dictates. There truly is a market for smoke-free dining and drinking establishments. The gapingly obvious solution is for some to establish such businesses, and for those who hate breathing other people's smoke to PATRONIZE THE SMOKE-FREE ESTABLISHMENTS. And employees who do not want to place themselves at risk by inhaling secondhand smoke may apply for jobs at the smoke-free places.
And everyone lived happily every after. The nonsmokers lived longer, of course. Read
Read More: IL Cook County Ban Update Page 1
|
