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.
I have never said otherwise. However, what gives you the right to dictate to a private business owner how he should run his business? Is going to McDonalds a right?
I didn't see the poster advocate LAWS in his post about McDonalds. Until he advocates the use of force, I don't see where anyone can have an argument about his approach to Mc Donalds. It is his moronic approach to these threads which is a problem for me.
I'm trying to give the fellow the benefit of the doubt. He is well within his rights to petition his city council to do a thing. Whether that thing he asks of them is really a good idea is another thing entirely.
I had rather bad allergies and asthma when I was a young child, as well. I remember having breathing attacks when going out to the shopping center and restaurants, and back then there were virtually no laws against smoking to speak of. I don't remember my parents or grandparents lobbying to outlaw tobacco, but I do remember them asking strangers to extinguish their smokes.
Be that as it may, it doesn't address the issue of whether such laws are good, whether they are harmful, or even whether the good results are outweighed negative effects. I would say that the effects of this law were rather serious for the people who worked at the restaurant in the post at the top of this thread.
Generally speaking, conservatives seem to be pretty good at realizing that adding new laws and regulations tends to negatively impact business. For every supposed good effect that a law addresses, the profitability of all businesses is affected due to the unfunded mandates of these laws. It is clear to me that the cost of mandatory smoke free business is paid by the lost livelihoods of the employees and owners of restaurants who go out of business.
I think it is necessary for business to survive or fail on the merits of their own business practices, and that this is the basis of free enterprise. It is important to note that the edicts of government can and do affect everyone. Usually conservatives or Republicans seem pretty good at realizing that do-gooding government often does more harm than good. However, there are certian emotional issues that seem to rouse the do-gooding in everyone. Children is one, and smoking is another.
I'd as readers of this thread to ask themselves: "is this trip really necessary?" I am guarded against calls to do something "for the children." It would seem to be the phrase that guarantees government action, when private action would be sufficient.
The question of petitioning government to get them to use force to get his will is legitimate too. About as legitimate as petitioning them to make slavery the law again. It should get the same concideration, none.
Everyone has a right to try and persuade a company to see things their way. What you've repeatedly failed to distinguish is the fact that there's a difference between using letter writing campaigns and boycotts vs. using government to achieve your means. The former is exercising your right as an American; the latter is immoral.
No, going to McDonalds is not a right. But I do have the right to complain as effectively as I can. In addition, the state does have the right to regulate McDonalds.
Wrong again. If the smokers didn't smoke the state would have to raise taxes on everyone, and of course higher taxes mean less money in the taxpayers pocket so they would go out less often and/or order less.
Okie dokie. They have the POWER. The power to regulate has been granted to the state by its people. Unless our rights trumps their power, you are out of luck. TO date, you have shown zero, nada, zip cases by which you can base your case that the state doesn't have the power to enact these laws.
Maybe you smokers can get an amendment passed.
Now that you have learned about the difference between powers and rights, we can move onto the next step. We need to go v e r y s l o w l y for you.
There is legitimate power and illegitimate power. Got that?
1+1=2
Yes, master and who decides what is legitimate and illegitimate ? You sir ? I might be wrong but I thought it was the courts subject to the legislature.
True. It took a civil war and an amendment to correct that. Maybe smokers will get a civil war and an amendment also. They will have their own version of Abe Lincoln to lead them into freedom from government regulations and bondage only by their addictions.
It's a long list.
Guess who won't be fighting? Cowards who send government thugs to usurp rights.
They always cower away when the fighting starts. Too bad, cause I'd love you to show up on my property telling me what I can do there.
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.