Tempe (Arizona) bar revenue down 20 percent after smoking ban

azfamily ^

[chance33_98]

Tempe bar revenue down 20 percent 10/26/2002

The Associated Press

TEMPE -- City tax records show the 5-month-old smoking ban in Tempe has had little effect on tax revenue coming from bars.

New data compiled by Tempe finance director Rich Oesterle shows that bars were submitting significantly less tax revenue to the city as early as April.

The smoking ban took effect in May and taxes collected for the month were reported to the city in July.

According to Oesterle, April collections were 21.7 percent below the previous year and May's collections were down 20.2 percent.

The recently reported sales for August show that bars suffered a 20.4 percent decline and July's collections were off 33.2 percent.

[chance33_98]

Puff and Ping

[txhurl]

unintended consequences strike again

[Lexington Green]

Better Free than Smoke-Free

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Ross is my friend and we both smoke good cigars.

[LiberalBuster]

Of course, this will only come as a shock to clueless liberals who (for some reason) are incapable of anticipating the obvious consequences of their misguided do-goodism.

[SheLion]

Another one biting the dust.

Smoking Bans Bad For Business

[The Great RJ]

Hate to quote Lenin--but..."people vote with their feet"-- if they don't like what you are doing they go elsewhere. Clearly the smokers are in significant numbers staying home.

Our Legislature recently passed a smoking ban on businesses that affects restaurants that do not serve liquor or beer or have casino permits. Those restaurants who chose not to get alcohol permits are also seeing business drop.

[KS Flyover]

Cities try for united ban on smoking (So as to not lose money to competition)

Mayors and officials of nine Valley cities and towns on Thursday agreed that a regional or statewide smoking ban is needed to prevent some cities from losing money to competitors.

Council members for Peoria and Glendale, which are exploring a possible ban, called the meeting because businesses in cities that have adopted tough bans, such as Tempe, complain that patrons take their business to bordering cities.

[Great Dane]

Council members for Peoria and Glendale, which are exploring a possible ban, called the meeting because businesses in cities that have adopted tough bans, such as Tempe, complain that patrons take their business to bordering cities.

And if the smoker can't go to neighboring Cities, they will just stay home and have friends over.

[DLfromthedesert]

Instead of complaining, rescind the ban. Duhhhhh!!!

[SheLion]

And if the smoker can't go to neighboring Cities, they will just stay home and have friends over.

That's for sure! I see it happening more everyday. Maybe only 25-30% of the customers smoke, but you pull 25-30% of the revenue out, and it's going to hurt.

Plus, at bars, most of the patrons smoke. So that would be a BIG loss of revenue. People aren't going to be running outside to smoke, leaving their drink sitting on the bar or table, vulnerable to something being "dropped into it," while they are away, if you know what I mean.

[Rocksalt]

My city is smoke-free in bars and the next city over is not,as is the unincorporated area between the two.The bars over there are cleaning up,obviously all the smokers migrate over there where the livin's easy.

[Dr Warmoose]

I detest cigarette smoke as much as any other whiner, but I understand the slippery slope theory. If we invite a mob of people to dictate other people's personal habits in one category, where does it end?

Furthermore, much (not all) of the push for this kind of legislation comes from the resturaunt industry itself. Managers have fewer people who are willing to stink up their hair and clothes working the "smoking section", so they demand that certain employees work those stations. The employee in return tries to weasel out of doing that work and complains about whatever they can without getting fired. The problem isn't the patrons, as more and more resturaunts are doing a better job of keeping smoke from the non-smoking areas. It's managers not being able to staff the smoking sections, and owners tired of paying huge money to clean the air up and keep OSHA, EPA and the health inspector out of their wallets. Smokers are really damaging to more than other people's lungs - smoke sticks to everything and does horrible things to fabrics. But their damage is offset by the profits. Now if the very same people would dump nearly the same amount of money into the resturaunt without smoking, then instead of there invariably being an inbalance between the smoking and non-smoking sections, and empty tables in the smoking section because non-smokers refuse to have their Mesquite smoked steaks Marlboro smoked, all tables could be filled and better profitability.

Resturaunt owners, stuck with these problems, know that by banning smoking themselves, 25-30% of their revenue will go literally across the street, so they pretend that the city has a captive audience and that by merely eliminating smoking in all places, they won't lose customers to a shop that allows smoking.

The city council, responsible for keeping the budget, wants people to smoke because cigarettes bring in money, and cigarette smoking usually results in more alcohol sales, which adds to the city coffers too. But invariably, there are some liberty robbing nazis who are voted in by the "holier than thou" meddling constituancy, and behold! There is pressure from within to pass nonsense such as this.

Now that the city council has found out that the money isn't pouring in like they expected, they want to make it universal so money doesn't go literally across city boundaries.

[SheLion]

Now that the city council has found out that the money isn't pouring in like they expected, they want to make it universal so money doesn't go literally across city boundaries.

Exactly. Also, with the high cost of cigarette taxes the lawmakers imposed, the smokers are now buying from Reservations, off of the Internet or Rolling Their Own to stop paying into state coffers.

The lawmakers are livid because they aren't realizing that hugh windfall of tax money they thought the smoking "sheeple" were going to give them.

[Great Dane]

My city is smoke-free in bars and the next city over is not,as is the unincorporated area between the two.The bars over there are cleaning up,obviously all the smokers migrate over there where the livin's easy.

Same here, we have a 100% ban....... everybody in town is loosing, even after more than a year of the ban, the non-smokers had said they would go out a lot more if smoking was banned..... they lied.

[Still Thinking]

And now the Tempe city government is demanding that the city governments in all the surrounding towns pass equally draconian laws so they won't be harmed by their own stupidity. This, to me, represents the height of arrogance. When they do something with bad results, they seem incapable of questioning the wisdom of THEIR decision, but instead berate everyone else for the crime of not making that decision and not suffering the consequences! "I wanna be a tyrant, I wanna, I WANNA!!! How dare you other cities undermine our efforts to force people to do what WE think is good for them!! It's not faiiiiiir!!"

[giznort]

Let each business decide whether or not to allow smoking. The local goverment should stick to governmental-type issues. Those bars/restaurants that want smokers should have them. Those that don't want them can ban them. Simple. Everyone's happy? (why don't I run for office - - - I make such GOOD sense!!!!!)

[Rocksalt]

I will admit it's not that hard for me to walk out into the little smoking tent or on the backporch to smoke-it's just the basic premise of the thing. People telling a private business owner what to do in their own establishment just don't make sense.You,me and millions of other americans agree on this.

[Great Dane]

You,me and millions of other americans agree on this.

Excactly, this is such a slipery slope, the majority won't realize that until it's too late.