Posted on 05/19/2002 8:12:00 AM PDT by Gabz
Delaware businesses fearful for future
Carmine Alessandro, general manager of the Brunswick Doverama bowling alley in the Rodney Village Shopping Center, believes patrons who may initially stay away once the smoking ban goes into effect will eventually come back. Other Downstate business owners are less certain, even angry, about the law. Staff photos by John King
By Jack Brighton and Hilary Corrigan, Staff writers
DOVER - Members of Delaware's General Assembly last week completed the bold step of banning smoking in nearly all public buildings.
The measure, Senate Bill 99, now awaits the signature of Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, who has said she will sign it into law.
The new law would go into effect 180 days after Gov. Minner signs it.
By then, the state may begin seeing the answers to the many questions that have been raised by the ban.
Business owners have questioned how the ban would be enforced and what impact it would have on their livelihoods.
Some legislators and residents have questioned how the ban could impact the state's economy.
For now, no one seems to have the answers.
"I don't know," said Steve Grossman, manager of JW's Dugout, a restaurant and bar in the Hamlet Shopping Center on Walker Road in Dover.
Owners of public places where smoking is prevalent, such as bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and Delaware's three slots casinos, have expressed major concerns over the ban.
Denis McGlynn, president and CEO of Dover Downs, predicted the state could lose as much as $57 million a year from its share of slots proceeds if disgruntled smokers stop coming.
While the stakes may not be as great for small business owners, the concerns are just as big.
Will customers come?
"We have been here 11 years and this is the first time I'm really worried," Ralph Figueroa, owner of the Touchdown Restaurant on U.S. 13 in Dover.
"The legislature did not consider small business. I feel I'm going to lose one-fourth of my customers, and I'm not a big chain, just a small guy.
"If I lose them I'm out of business. I built a separate dining room to take care of the problem, but now it doesn't matter.
"At least 50 percent of my customers smoke. I don't know what we can do. Some have already told me they are going to dine at home."
If smokers stay home, Mr. Grossman said, he will try to find ways to lure new customers.
"My job is to market myself more competitively than my competition to offer my products and services to a wider group of people in a smoke-free environment," he said.
Bob Pritchard, who for 25 years has owned and operated the Sea Ranch Motel, on Del. 1 between Rehoboth Beach and Dewey Beach, finds the law offensive.
"What in the world's the government doing coming in here, telling me how to run my business?" he asked. "It's the government telling us what to do with our property."
Mr. Pritchard doesn't smoke and his father, a smoker, died of emphysema. But people should have a choice to go to a business that allows smoking, he said.
Under the measure, hotels would be able to set aside 25 percent of their rooms for smokers.
Mr. Pritchard designates 21 of his motel's 22 units as smoking rooms during the summer months, his busiest season.
He fears customers might go elsewhere if a reduced number of smoking rooms are already booked.
"I make my living in 56 days," he said.
Carmine Alessandro, general manager of the Brunswick Doverama in the Rodney Village Shopping Center, believes patrons that may initially stay away once the ban goes into effect will eventually come back.
"When Maryland banned smoking, bowling took a 30 percent beating the first year or two, but as people became comfortable with not being able to smoke anywhere, business rebounded," he said.
The image of a smoke-filled billiard room could be history if the measure goes into effect.
Jim Wilson, manager of Rack's Bar & Billiards on U.S. 13 in Dover, might build an outdoor smoking area, but he's taking a wait-and-see approach for now.
He said nonsmokers he's talked to are happy the ban could be implemented.
"They say, 'Good, we can come shoot pool now,' " he said. "Will the smokers come out all night like they always do and will the nonsmokers come out all night? We will have to wait and see."
The measure allows smoking during fund-raisers at fraternal organizations and fire companies, a move some business owners are questioning.
"I don't why it is OK to smoke during a fund-raiser but not OK any other time," said Kishor C. Sheth, owner of the Dover Bowl on Jefferic Boulevard and the Fairfield Inn on U.S. 13.
Mr. Figueroa said he is afraid private organizations will hold fund-raisers "all the time" to lure smoking customers.
How will it be policed?
Business owner are questioning not only the law's impact on their bottom line, but how it will be enforced.
"How are we going to enforce the law?" Mr. Sheth asked. "When we have no openings for our smoking rooms, there are people who say a nonsmoking room is fine, then they get a nonsmoking room and smoke in it."
Enforcement could be even more difficult at his bowling lanes, he said.
"When we have a league, we have 200 people in the center, and we have only two or three (employees)," he said. "It will be very difficult to enforce the law. We have no desire to break the law but how to enforce it will be a great concern."
Mr. Pritchard has similar worries about his motel.
"I want to know how I'm going to stop someone from smoking in those rooms," he said.
"I can put a sign on the door, but once they shut that door, I have no idea how I'm going to stop that person from smoking in that room."
Mr. Figueroa hopes police won't be patrolling his restaurant looking for smokers.
"We got away from being strictly a bar because I used to have the police sitting outside all the time," he said.
"So I went to a restaurant to solve the problem. But now we might have someone sitting inside watching for someone to light up. Now it's our job to monitor these people."
Under the measure, the state Department of Health and Social Services, along with the Department of Labor, is charged with writing rules and regulations to enforce the prohibition.
Allison Taylor Levine, a DHSS spokeswoman, said the departments would not begin crafting the guidelines until after Gov. Minner signs SB99 into law.
Once the bill is signed, Ms. Levine said, DHSS and the Department of Labor will meet to discuss which agency has jurisdiction over which areas and then begin writing the rules and regulations.
Tourist boon or bane?
Those responsible for attracting visitors to Delaware are uncertain what effect the ban could have on tourism.
"I think it will hurt business in some measure, but as yet it's undetermined," said Mary Skelton, director of Kent County Tourism.
Jennifer Boes, a spokeswoman for the Delaware Tourism Office, said the agency has no way of knowing the ban's potential impact.
"We cannot determine, at this point, what the impact on the tourism industry will be because we have no other legislation to reference as a comparison," she said.
"Delaware would be setting a precedent with Senate Bill 99."
'A healthy move'
One group is pleased by the measure's passage - the anti-smoking activists.
"We're in full support of it," Whitney Pogwist, a community specialist with the American Cancer Society, said of SB 99.
"Delaware's setting a great example for the rest of the country."
The American Cancer Society expects the state's number of smokers to drop and the number of those quitting smoking to rise.
Illnesses associated with secondhand smoke kill people every year, she said. This bill will cut down on the number of those affected by secondhand smoke, such as people suffering from asthma, she said.
The move also will lead to lowering Delaware's number of cancer incidents and the mortality rate associated with cancer, said Eileen McGrath, vice president of government relations for the mid-Atlantic division of the American Cancer Society.
"We're very thrilled," she said of the bill's passage.
Karen Murtha, a spokeswoman for Impact, a Delaware tobacco prevention coalition based in the American Lung Association of Delaware, said the association has gotten calls and e-mails from people who say they look forward to bowling through three frames without having to use their inhalers, or who plan to go dancing at bars again.
"We're just very pleased that the legislators listened to their constituents," she said. "Everyone should have their right to breathe clean air protected.
"It's a great, proactive measure to protect everyone from secondhand smoke. People will become accustomed to a smoke-free state.
"We hope to be a model for other states. It's really a good, healthy move for the state."
Staff writer Joe Rogalsky contributed to this article.
Hilary Corrigan can be reached at 422-1200 or hcorrigan@newszap.com.
Jack Brighton can be reached at 741-8225 or jbrighton@newszap.com.
Members of Delaware's General Assembly last week completed the bold step of banning smoking in nearly all public buildings.
That happened in 1994 - what this legislation does is bans smoking in nearly all PRIVATE buildings.
I spent a couple hours talking with this guy the other day - he's devasted, to say the least.
There are alot of other businesses in Delaware that make their living in those same 56 days. Apparently he has found it neccessary to allow smoking in 21 of his rooms - and now that number is going to drop to 5????
I think he has a right to be concerned. And he also has good reason.
Socialism isn't creeping anymore, it's galloping.
Fight, God dammit!
...a kindred spirit.
Rehoboth Beach is generally called the Nation's Summer Capitol - I think it's going to turn into more of a wasteland and Ocean City, Maryland is going to get that moniker.
Just one more reason I can't wait to sell my house and get out of here.
Even when I smoked (30 yrs) I had the courtesey to not smoke while eating in public places.
No smoking makes going out MORE pleasurable. If you want to smoke, go outside with the rest of the pasty grey people and smoke away.
BTW, your business is NOT private. There are all kinds of laws protecting the public where people gather. You probably don't like that, but that's the way it is.
this wasn't the only article in the paper this morning - here's another one:
Challenges just beginning. Politics, public health, individual rights in smoking ban equation
Although some might question the timing of the legislation in light of looming state budget deficits, Mr. Davis said politics always plays a role as to when a particular bill comes up for a vote.
Davis is right - a lot of politics played into this one. it had originally been scheduled for reconsideration in the Senate on June 14 - but got pushed up to May 14.
A few interesting tidbits about the movement of the date: The state comptroller had been out of town for the week previous and did not have an opportunity to look at the fiscal ramifications of eliminating the exemptions for bars and the casinos. Also, this coming Monday the budget wrriting committee begins it's 2 weeks of final budget markups and on Monday the Financial Advisory council meets for the final time to finalize the current fiscal year numbers and predictions for the new fiscal year.
This would never have passed in it's current form had all the financial ramifications been laid out thoroughly. so by fast-tracking it, legislators who are indebted to the anti-smoker cartel get kudos for protecting 'the public health' and at the same time can avoid political suicide for hurting the state's bottome line.
"Delaware's setting a great example for the rest of the country."
Who the HELL do these people think they are. They are ruining the United States.
We tore down ONE wall and brought it to the United STATES!
Otto J. Mueksch
President, Californians For Smokers Rights
After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban). The media, with furnished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, there is NO damage to the restaurant industry. In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better than ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm.
When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies 1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO growth. The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of liquor is served. I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB.
The analysis I conducted shows the following:
Even though there was Zero growth, the FF sector showed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%. Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various categories. The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%, while the permits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.
Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sales statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below the overall economy figures, at 28.6%. However, the clincher, and what the Media and the anti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is that the number of permits issued for FF rose by 12.7%, whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which means that there were 1,039 fewer RB’s in California. In other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or bars went out of business.
That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.
They all took a very big hit in the wallet when the state allowed the 3 horserace tracks to start operating slot machine casinos. Well, the fire companies and the fraternal groups are exempt from this when they are holding fundraisers - but as far as I can tell - the churches aren't.
This is going to be very interesting to watch in the coming days and weeks!!!
Talk about skewing the numbers. Just because permits weren't issued doesn't mean there are "fewer RB's". Since when does "permits issued" equate to the loss of existing RB's (as you call them) . The number of "RB's" as you call them has INCREASED in my town in just the last year alone, ...and, you have to wait to get a seat....I now of NO local "RB's" or bars that have closed since the law was passed.
BTW "FF" isn't only drive-thru, they have dining area's too.
If your problem is, you can't sit through a real meal without having a cigarette, then you should look at your own shortcomings, not the government.
Maybe if smokers had shown more courtesy, rather than call it "a right" in the past, the government wouldn't have had to take the actions they have....Maybe, just maybe, selfish smokers can look at themselves as the cause of the problem...ponder that one.
We can't!
The government has us tied up fighting on too many fronts.
Face it. We are dying from a thousand little cuts.
LOL!!! But how about holding them responsible for the undercapitalization of the state????
I disagree with you. It is a private business that invites certain members of the public to enter it. No one is required to enter the premises.
There are all kinds of laws protecting the public where people gather.
I have no problem with laws protecting the public - but business owners are members of the public as well. Creating laws that not only do not protect them, but can cause major damage are wrong.
There are many people in society with allergies that when triggered can be life threatening - are we next going to ban those in "public" places??? I personally can not get in close proximity to raw shrimp - should I insist that no restaurant, bar or store have raw shrimp on the premises because one day, I may possibly decide to go there???? Of course not - that's ridiculous. But that is exactly what the anti-smokers want. they insist that ALL places they "might possibly, one day" decide to visit.
Just as I avoid contact with substances that have an adverse effect on me, everyone else can do the same. If you don't like the smoking policy of an establishment, complain to the owner/management and take your business elswhere. It's a very simple solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.