Posted on 12/20/2002 10:10:51 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
SAVANNAH NY- A ban on smoking has snuffed the life out of their D&S Diner, Susan and Doug Devall say. The owners of the village's only diner, one of the few businesses on Main Street, say they will close for good Dec. 29. They blame Wayne County's no-smoking law, which passed in January.
We'd still be here, Doug Devall said, if the law hadn't passed.
The couple opened the diner in August 2000, after a string of businesses failed at the same location. Although the diner didn't turn a profit in its first year, the two expected to operate in the black the second year. Then the no-smoking law sent that goal go up in smoke. Nearby Cayuga County has no ban on smoking in restaurants, so the Devalls figure much of their business went to light up elsewhere. That took 30 percent of the customers right out of here, Doug Devall said.
Sales were down $3,000 in July 2002 compared to July 2001. Hardest hit were on Friday nights and Sunday mornings.
The couple had the option of converting an extra room into a smoking room, but the cost of installing ventilation, sealing doors and other measures was too much. Meanwhile, the two sympathized with their smoking customers and let them indulge under the counter, so to speak.
If it's not busy in here, I will let people smoke. I'm not going to lose my business, Susan Devall said soon after the law went into effect.
The decision to allow smoking or not should be left up to the individual business owner, Doug Devall said. Restaurant owners should be able to choose whether their establishment will be smoking or non-smoking.
The bottom line
Most of them are crying their eyes out because we're closing, but I can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul, he said. The bottom line: He needs around $800 a day to survive, said the couple. It's the days when less than $100 comes in and then the propane truck pulls in and there's a $400 bill to pay, those are the days that hurt, he said.
This stuff is going to backfire on politicians, come back and bite them on the ass, Doug said, referring not only to the smoking laws but to the high taxes and other regulations that New York state imposes on small businesses. Workman's compensation, disability, unemployment, liability -- the cost of insurance is extremely high for a small business that employs two full-time and three part-time people.
Absolutely, said Sandy Brownell, when asked whether the new smoking laws have hurt many small restaurants like the D & S Diner.
Brownell is a saleswoman for Palmer Distributing, which is based in Newark. It's hard for them to make it in New York state because of the insurance regulations and the taxes as well, she said. I see it a lot, more than I wish to, she said about the closing.
Brownell is a smoker herself, and said whether she could light up or not weighed into her decision on where to eat.
Not just customers
It's the customers Susan will miss the most, especially the regulars. In a small place like this, though -- one of the few places for people to gather in Savannah -- most of the customers are regulars. In fact, several people sitting at the counter Thursday afternoon, after the lunch rush, had the look of regulars about them.
It's like art work for you, said Jackie Shurtleff, placing Leon Waldron's grilled ham and cheese sandwich in front of him.
Waldron comes to the diner at least once a day, usually to shoot the crap with all the guys in the morning and to pick on everyone.
So where will Waldron go after the new year?
Nowhere it seems.
I'm still coming here, they just don't know that yet, he said.
Tim Carmon, who works in Savannah and drops by at least three times a week for lunch, also hates to see them go.
Shurtleff is Sue's sister, as well as one of the diner's employees. She's worked at the diner since the day it opened.
Both of these facts make the closing an extremely emotional event for her as well as her sister. Upsetting was how she described the upcoming closing -- the simplicity of the words belied the complicated emotions felt.
Before he started working part-time at the diner, Randy Brown would come in with his father for lunch. Off duty Thursday afternoon, he sat at the counter eating what Jackie euphemistically called a concoction -- a Philly sandwich with extra cheese plus pickles, potato chips, and ketchup -- all on the sandwich, not on the side.
Brown has another part-time job at Pearl Technologies, but will miss the good atmosphere at the diner.
It's the environment that will be missed even more than the food. Mrs. Nobel, a Savannah resident whom Shurtleff described fondly as a fixture, has been coming to the diner morning and noon since it opened.
Nobel said the diner has the same friendly, pleasant extended family feeling as when Betty Kelly owned the building and operated a luncheonette there more than 20 years ago.
Nobel doesn't think there will be another business opening in the space anytime soon though -- a great loss for the village.
The diner will be sorely missed on Main Street, which has more empty storefronts than full ones. A couple of bars, a hair salon, a convenience store/gas station, the town hall. Given the limited amount of amenities and services available in this hamlet, most residents head to Seneca Falls or Auburn for basic necessities and entertainment.
This exodus will seemingly continue.
Future plans
There will be an auction in January, and then the Devalls will try to lease the space. Since they own the building, which has apartments upstairs, the couple's connection with the hamlet won't be totally severed.
Drink beer and raise hell, Doug said, when asked about his plans for the future. His contracting business will continue to take up most of his time.
But ultimately it's Sue, at the diner just about every day, who'll miss and be missed the most. Her husband joked his wife would be able to enjoy a stretch of being Suzy Homemaker.
Based on Sue's response to that suggestion, it doesn't seem likely.
Although the couple got smoked out of Savannah, figuratively speaking, Sue hasn't been totally burnt by the restaurant business. But she would consider something closer to home and in a higher traffic area, she said. In fact, with an eye on the future, the couple is tentatively keeping an eye on a place in Weedsport.
But the 29th is going to be pretty hard, Sue said.
Excellent example, but one that, IMHO, detracts from your argument rather than supports it. First, there is clearly antecedent behavior. That is, people going to movies, etc. prior to cell phone use. In your example, it is the cell phone user who introduces their behavior into an established setting. And it is they who owe courtesy to others. Just as clearly, smokers in restaurants were the established order long before anti-smokers made an intrusion. If anything, anti-smokers owe smokers a courtesy.
Far more important than the issue of courtesy is that of rights. In this case, the rights of property and pursuit of happiness. In your example of cell phones in a theater, it is the owners property and prerogative to announce, "Ladies and gentlemen, we present, for your pleasure, Othello and an assortment of cellure telephone conversations." It is my prerogative to attend or not. Anything else destroys the rights of us all.
Smoke spreads throughout a confined space true enough. But you are not required to be in that confined space and unless and until you are, your rights are in no way being violated. Children are required by law to attend school. I would support public school buildings being smoke free. You are required by law to attend court when selected for jury duty or served with a subpoena. I support courts being smoke free. In fact, I believe government has the power to ban smoking in all public places, including parks, streets, etc. After all, smokers don't own those places. There are many forms of behavior that we have no right to perform in public but may in private. In short, choosing to occupy a setting is tacit approval of the the setting.
Finally, anti-smokers owe all of us an apology for the absolutely deprived manner in which they have perverted justice for everyone with their false claims that second hand smoke is killing people. They have no proof, but that is immaterial. If they can sway opinion via ruse, they appear more than willing to do so. Shame on you all.
And what is the basis of those decisions? One utterly depraved side using lies about second hand smoke? You side with evil.
And will your gloating continue as restaurants become, by force of law, fat-free, meat-free, sodium free, cholesteral free? Will you gloat as our highways become SUV free? Single vehicle occupant free? As our schools become education free? Our lives become rights free? Where do you draw the line. You OK with banning everything you disapprove of? How you gonna stop it there?
Actually, the right to smoke in public is being pretty well maintained. It is in private that it is being attacked. The inability to determine the difference is yet another sign of a liberal
So you believe the purpose of the individual is to server society?
Thanks for the message, I don't think anyone here cares about your advice, so spare everyone now that you have given your great message.
That is not at all what you are doing. 1st, you are demanding, (at gunpoint if necessary) not asking. Always someone else's gun, btw.
2nd, you aren't talking about public places, you are talking about private property. I know you would like to obscure the two, but no thinking person falls for it.
I don't think you get it and you run to the "loss of rights" as a cover for your fear of not smoking for a short duration inside a restaurant. Do you fly commercially? Do you attend church? Do you spend any time at your children's school?
In all of these places, smoking is banned by the owner of the property. Not at gunpoint. It is the owner's right to set the terms of your presence on their property.
Should we allow smoking in these places?
We? You have a frog in your pocket? YOU have no say, it's not YOUR property or YOUR call. You can choose to not enter.
You have hit on the hidden truth behind the smoking bans. Although the restaurant business can be financially rewarding, it is a passion with successful operators. I was in the restaurant business for 25 years and based on my observations, liberal operators passions seemed to emphasize their idea of what you should be eating, and more to the point, how you should live. As a result of these, "liberal" passions the fare and motif of their restaurants were very disagreeable. Even the most radical smoke nazis find these restaurants repulsive and insulting.
Am I missing something here? No smoker I know wishes to be the cause of you or your child's demise. We would like to be able to dine in a restaurant that allows smoking. These restaurants should have very large, obvious signs warning you and yours about said policy. According to you and your ilk, 75% of Americans don't smoke. Simple math tells me 75% of the restaurants would ban smoking or face the consequences of the free market.
It's about time someone put an end to those filty polluters, but Hizzoner doesn't go far enough.
Making them huddle in groups outside is OK, but that only works when they're actually smoking. It'd be more effective to make them wear some sort of identification ALL the time, maybe a yellow hexagonal star thingy or something.
Everybody knows second-hand smoking is a hazard to society at large, and we've had enough - it's time to segregate this antisocial group from civilization completely. I'm thinking camps here, camps with barbed wire and machine-gun posts. I'll bet we could round up enough railway cars to make getting them there easier. Here they can work to give up their filthy addiction - work builds character, dontcha know...
(Well, it sounded better in German, but you get my drift.)
" You could easily say when you're seated "Is there a non-smoking section?" And if no - just go elsewhere. But to ramrod your social preferences through the courts? That's just plain wrong. "
It has never occured to me to limit someone else's freedom because I don't like a smell. Actually, that sounds like something a 2 year old would do. Business owners respond to one thing, profit. If enough customers demand something, they will do it.
It's called a business plan.
And there's a huge difference between cash flow and profit.
Depreciation comes to mind, when there's an initial cost for capital expenditures; equipment, furniture, etc.
Ahhh, we have found the cusp of the Jihadis' fury.
Some resistors left.
How disconcerting this must be.
Good.
Please cite examples of this happening, with links (outside of San Francisco, of course.)
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.